While President Donald Trump is combating the transgender agenda from the White House, across the pond, Britain’s highest court just issued a landmark ruling on the definition of “man” and “woman.” In 2018, Scottish legislators broadened the definition of “woman” as used in the Equality Act of 2010 (EA 2010) to include biological males who identify as women, even those who have not yet undergone gender transition procedures, provided that the males have gender recognition certificates (GRC) identifying their genders as female. The legislative redefinition was quickly challenged and, after a series of court battles, found its way to the U.K. Supreme Court.
The court unanimously ruled on Wednesday “that the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’[,] and ‘sex’ in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex.” The court wrote, “As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.” The justices continued, “For example, the provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity … are based on the fact of pregnancy and giving birth to a child. As a matter of biology, only biological women can become pregnant. Therefore, these provisions are unworkable unless ‘man’ and ‘woman’ have a biological meaning…”
“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” the justices explained. They continued, “The practical problems that arise under a certificated sex approach are clear indicators that this interpretation is not correct… The Court rejects the suggestion … that ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ can refer to biological sex in some sections of the EA 2010, and certificated sex in others.” The justices stipulated, “The meaning of ‘sex’ and ‘woman’ must be consistent throughout the EA 2010.” They concluded, “The meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’[,] and ‘woman’ in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex, as any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate… Therefore, a person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of a ‘woman’…”
Patrick Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the U.K. Supreme Court, clarified in court, “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.” He continued, “We counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.” The Supreme Court justice explained that the EA 2010 does afford legal protections to those who identify as transgender, even if they do not possess a GRC, but that the definitions of “man,” “woman,” and “sex” in the legislation are essentially biological.
Trina Budge, director of the For Women Scotland organization that challenged the redefinition “woman,” told reporters, “It’s absolutely a victory for women’s rights. This case was always about women, never about trans rights.” She added, “Now we have clarity over what a ‘woman’ means in law.” Budge continued, “We know for sure now that we are defined as a biological sex class of women and that when we see a women-only space, it means exactly that, just women, no men, not even if they have a gender recognition certificate.” She added, “Trans people never had these rights to access women-only spaces, trans men did not have that right. That was an overreach on their part.”
Reactions to the ruling from across the political and ideological spectrum have largely been positive. The author J.K. Rowling, who has emerged as a staunch opponent of transgenderism, hailed the court’s decision, saying, “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.”
Kemi Badenoch, leader of the U.K.’s Conservative Party, said in a social media post, “Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.” Referring to the U.K.’s left-wing prime minister, she added, “The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!”
Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon told The Washington Stand, “When I first started working on the gender issue in 2015, there were few folks in the U.S. engaged on this issue. We found community online where I became acquainted with feminists from the U.K. who were fighting on this issue. This day has been a long time coming for all women in Britain, and I’m grateful for this ruling for them and for the world. Every time courts affirm that men are men and women are women, the world wins.”
Rupert Lowe, a sitting member of parliament (MP) and former member of the Reform U.K. Party, quipped, “Absolute madness that we’re even debating what a woman is — it’s a biological fact. No amount of woke howling will ever change that.” He added, “Now — let’s keep men out of women’s sports and spaces. We must prioritise safety over inclusivity, dignity over wokery, reality over ideology.”
Even Richard Dawkins, a renowned atheist and progressive proponent, praised the court’s decision. “Supreme Court rules that a woman is legally defined as … a woman. Congratulations,” he said in a social media post. Referring to the court’s definition of biological sex as “binary,” Dawkins added, “Yes, the science was settled in the Precambrian. Nice that the law has finally caught up.”
