We need to talk about Gender & the law
The UK Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that, under current equalities law, the legal definition of a woman refers to biological sex, marking the end of a long and contentious legal battle.
Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a cold, calculated slap in the face to trans people everywhere—a grim victory for reactionaries and faux-feminist bigots hiding behind legalese. It’s a regressive, fearmongering move, pandering to the worst elements of the far right and emboldening a culture of exclusion, surveillance, and institutionalised cruelty. Wrapped in sanctimonious nonsense about 'clarity,' this ruling reeks of cowardice, elitism, and small-mindedness. It gaslights the trans community while pretending to be neutral. Let’s call it what it is: a dangerous, hypocritical, tone-deaf betrayal that prioritises control over compassion, and prejudice over progress.
This decision could have far-reaching consequences for how sex-based rights are applied in Scotland, England, and Wales. It follows a challenge from the campaign group For Women Scotland, which sought to restrict sex-based legal protections to people assigned female at birth.
While the court did rule in their favour, Deputy President Lord Hodge emphasised that this shouldn’t be seen as a 'victory' for one group over another. This made absolutely no sense with teh rest of the findings of the judgement. While heaffirmed that transgender people are still protected under equalities law from discrimination, a point that some media outlets have chosen to downplay, and is a point that is contradictory to teh ruling.
The problem is that of course it is being seen as a 'victory' for the reactionary right. The ruling has unwittingly recognised the urgent need for a clearer and more inclusive framework that protects everyone's rights without pitting one marginalised group against another. Many campaigners are now calling on lawmakers to reform outdated legislation to better reflect the realities of gender identity and lived experience in the 21st century.
Today's judgement should worry you all because it was not just about defining the perameters of Trans rights. The JK Rowling fan club are popping champagne corks but if you think it ends here then you're in for a bit of a shock.
For a start let's look at where the case came from. For Women Scotland (FWS) is a reactionary right wing funded grassroots campaign group founded in 2018 in response to the Scottish Government's proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act. FWS is known for its opposition to reforms that would allow individuals to change their legal sex through self-declaration. The group has been described as anti-trans and trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Trans Safety Network+2Wikipedia+2Trans Safety Network+2
While FWS laughingly identifies as a grassroots feminist organisation, it has not gone un-noticed for its associations with far-right and ultra conservative groups. In November 2022, FWS participated in an event organized by the right-wing platform Battle of Ideas, alongside members of the Christian Institute and other groups known for anti-LGBT stances. Trans Safety Network
Additionally, events aligned with gender-critical feminism, such as a rally in Glasgow in February 2023, have attracted attendance from far-right individuals and groups. While FWS did not organize this particular rally, the presence of far-right attendees at similar events has raised concerns about the overlap between gender-critical activism and far-right ideologies. Trans Safety Network
These associations have led to debates within feminist and LGBTQ+ communities about the implications of aligning with groups that have broader agendas beyond women's rights, particularly when those agendas may conflict with the rights and protections of transgender individuals.
The group opposes allowing individuals to change their legal sex through self-declaration, arguing that such changes could undermine sex-based rights for women. FWS has been involved in legal challenges concerning the definition of "woman" in legislation, notably contesting the inclusion of transgender women with Gender Recognition Certificates in the 2018 Gender Representation on Public Boards Act. Latest news & breaking headlines+7battleofideas.org.uk+7battleofideas.org.uk+7For Women Scotland+1Wikipedia+1Scottish Feminist Network+5PinkNews+5The Pink Times+5
J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, has publicly supported For Women Scotland's stance. In early 2024, she donated £70,000 to assist FWS in their legal battle over the definition of "woman" under the Equality Act. Rowling has got a real hair up her arse about this and her involvement has drawn both support and criticism, reflecting the broader societal debate over gender identity and women's rights.The Telegraph+5PinkNews+5Feminist Legal Clinic+5
Terf accountant - JK Rowling stumped up £70k to fund FWS court case that is the antithesis of everything she's ever wrote about.
The UK Supreme Court ruling, which aligns with FWS's position by defining 'woman' based on biological sex, has intensified discussions around the balance between protecting women's rights and ensuring inclusivity for transgender individuals. The court ruling defined an unsquarable circle. While the court emphasized that transgender people remain protected against discrimination, the decision has been seen by some as a setback for trans rights, prompting calls for legislative reform to better reflect contemporary understandings of gender identity. AP News
Firstly, no matter what a Judge says the Equality Act cannot be selective on who has equality. If equality is not across the board then there is no equality at all. The judgement even acknowledged this today. On the World at One on Radio 4 today, predictively the concentrated on what toilet a trans person would use rather than what the cause and effect of suppressing a vulnerable minority of the population is. Well let me tell you about womens toilets. They have cubicles where you do your business in privacy. If anyone breaches that privacy, man or woman, they are breaking the law already. Exactly the same applies in mens toilets. There is an inference that trans women are 'pretending' to be women to gain access to partically dressed women for nefarious reasons. This doesn't take into consideration the hell that most trans go through in transitioning. Given this I'd just like to say this out loud - DO YOU KNOW HOW FUCKING STUPID THAT SOUNDS?
Now that FWS claim their reactionary 'battle' has allegedly been 'won' against trans people where exactly does this end? By the same arguments do you stop gay men using a public toilet because they might be sneaking a peak? This is fucking ridiculous. This plays right into the hands of the i cunts who want to roll back the human rights act - because they don't want the inconvenience of the law to stop them rolling back equality. Soon it will be gay marriage, the LBGTQ in its entirety, then it will be womens right to choose on abortion, then womens rights. Then freedom of religion. The world is going fucking backwards. The people behind this want us to live in the handmaids tale. Don't take my word for it - look at what is happening in the FUSA.
What this judgement has done is rather than create clarity it has confused the law around trans and left it open to interpretation. How does this work with prisons? restricted roles etc Whether you are an ally of trans or not you need to realise this is just the tip of the iceberg.
What today's judgement hasn't done it look beyond biology This is unbelievably short-sighted. Unlike the reactionary right who simply cannot see beyond genitals, or a moral-panic and unfounded perceived sexual danger from a minority that is in itself vulnerable. Those that advocate for trans inclusion recognise that gender identity isn’t purely biological, it’s also social, psychological, and deeply personal. When someone says they are a woman, that identity is real and valid. Those that embrace this are trying to move beyond a one-size-fits-all answer in favour of one that reflects lived experience, which takes time and thought to explain, and this creates questions that cannot be answered in binary.
Language around gender should be shifting to be more inclusive, not divisive - not to erase anyone, but to ensure that nobody is left behind. There are clearly biological differences between trans and none trans women (this is never about Trans men with the right is it?) A sensible judgement would have been to respect trans and non-binary people without denying the realities of cisgender women. Todays judgement did not do that. It was reactionary and based on bigotry and ignorance.
You might not understand trans. Fair enough, if it's not part of your life why should you, but if you had empathy then you'd at least accept difference. And don't think this judgement doesn't affect you because it very much does, what if your children or grandchildren come out and identify as trans? What if abortion becomes illegal? They are not going to stop at trans - this was the test case - the soft underbelly to go after eveything and everyone else. Today the law was used a a boot on the throats of the vulnerable. Is this a place you feel comfortable in? where the law is used to give an open door to oppressing minorities. What happens when you become the minority it oppresses? First they came for the trans...
You might want to think what this High Court ruling actually means to all women. Daniel Lismore, an artist from London perfectly captures this when he points out that as a result of this ruling, in the UK right now a woman now has to sit under a judgement that has taken away her autonomy. "She may now have to prove she is a woman: To the police or to anyone in authority that challenges her. To anyone checking whether you’re 'woman enough' to use a toilet, a changing room, a refuge, a hospital ward. So this isn’t just about trans women. It affects every single person who doesn’t perfectly match someone else’s idea of what a woman should look like. Androgynous. If you’re muscular. If you’re tall. If your voice is deep. If your clothes are a little outside the norm. Even if you were born a cisgender woman. You can now be questioned. Searched. Denied. Humiliated. Because someone decided you don’t look right. This ruling also ignores intersex people entirely over a million people in the UK because in this case, no one even mentioned that trans and intersex people exist. That’s how little they were considered and valued in this ruling, they were erased and not even considered human enough to be acknowledged in the Supreme Court hearing. This is what so-called “women’s rights” campaigners have done. They’ve stripped all women cis, trans and intersex of the right to move through the world without suspicion. You don’t gain safety by turning womanhood into a border checkpoint. You lose freedom. All of us do. So ask yourself, if someone looked at you in a public space and decided you didn’t “look like a real woman,” what would you do? Because now, you might have to prove it.This is not protection. This is a war on bodily autonomy. On identity. On basic dignity. Everyone should be furious and fighting back. The terfs forced this on themselves too, and it didn't occur to them that this judgement would be widened to be a form of control on all women".
I'M A STRAIGHT CIS MAN BUT I STAND AS AN ALLY WITH MY TRANS BROTHERS AND SISTERS
Fuck the gammon. And fuck JK Rowling and the angry little spiteful Shetland Pony she rode in on.
