Liberals and conservatives alike waited with bated breath as the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court ruled on the definition of “woman.”
The unanimous decision by five judges has sent shockwaves through the transgender community that had been fighting to redefine womanhood.
Ultimately, the court has returned power to biological women whose spaces and protections have been under assault.
The landmark ruling states unequivocally that under the UK’s 2010 Equality Act, the terms “woman” and “sex” refer specifically to biological women and biological sex.
Speaking for the court, Justice Patrick Hodge made clear that transgender individuals with documentation recognizing them as female are not considered women for equality purposes.
The case originated from a challenge to a 2018 Scottish law requiring 50% female representation on public boards, which controversially included transgender women with Gender Recognition Certificates.
The women’s rights group For Women Scotland (FWS) argued that this redefinition exceeded parliamentary powers and effectively undermined true female representation.
FWS raised the alarming possibility that, without proper biological definitions, public boards could technically meet female representation requirements while consisting entirely of biological males.
“Not tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise 50% men, and 50% men with certificates, yet still lawfully meet the targets for female representation,” argued Trina Budge of For Women Scotland.
The court’s ruling carefully balances biological reality with protections for transgender individuals.
While firmly establishing that biological sex determines womanhood, Justice Hodge emphasized the decision “does not remove protection from trans people.”
Transgender individuals remain protected from discrimination based on gender reassignment under the law.
The court noted trans people can still invoke provisions against direct discrimination, harassment, and indirect discrimination based on sex.
Author J.K. Rowling, who has faced intense backlash for her defense of women’s sex-based rights, supported FWS by donating to their legal fund.
Her position that biological sex is immutable has been vindicated by this ruling, much to the dismay of radical gender activists who have targeted her for years.
The Supreme Court’s decision overturned a previous rejection in 2022, affirming FWS’s argument that sex is determined biologically from conception and cannot be changed.
FWS’ lawyer, Aidan O’Neill, successfully argued that “sex should refer to biological sex and as understood in ordinary, everyday language.
Meanwhile, radical leftist organizations like Amnesty International have expressed concerns about the ruling, claiming it conflicts with human rights laws.
However, the court defended its decision by stating that equality law would be “incoherent and unworkable” if based on gender certification rather than biological sex.
