Woman defined

During the past decade and more the political left has been captured by transgender agitators promoting the delusional belief that people can become the opposite sex to that into which they were born. As a consequence public and private institutions, sporting bodies and even purely private member associations have been compelled or intimidated into accepting a raft of transgender demands under the guise of equalities legislation.

Until relatively recently there had been very little pushback against this agenda since all political parties, including the Conservatives, were happy to embrace it in order to burnish their ‘progressive’ credentials. However, the overwhelming majority of the public were either sceptical or hostile to this agenda which they could clearly see conflicted with biological reality. The most pernicious outcome of this propaganda campaign impacted confused young teenagers who were pressurised into taking puberty blockers, as the first stage in the misguided notion that they could ‘transition’ to becoming the opposite sex.

Fortunately, the transgender advocates have begun to suffer some serious setbacks. As a result of a recent court case young people under the age of sixteen can no longer be prescribed puberty blockers. Moreover, the Cass NHS review concluded that there was a lack of evidence about the efficacy of such medical interventions, that there was a toxicity of debate creating a climate of fear that prevented the open expression of dissenting opinions, and that many of the youngsters presenting as transgender had other difficulties such as mental health and autism which were not properly investigated.

The Supreme Court has now delivered a further serious blow in unanimously deciding that only biological women are covered by the definition of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010. The case was brought by a group of Scottish women challenging the decision of the extremist devolved Scottish regime, which had determined that men in possession of a ‘gender recognition certificate (GRC)’ could be classified as ‘women’ when appointments are made under ‘gender equality’ legislation to public bodies.

The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision encompass issues wider than just public appointments. It means that single sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms are intended for use by biological women only. It is likely that sporting bodies could be vulnerable to successful legal challenges if they continue to allow ‘trans-women’ to compete or play alongside biological women in female only sports.

Previous to the Supreme Court decision ‘trans-women’ claimed that they were legally just as entitled to enter women only spaces as biological women, a viewpoint that appeared to gain widespread acceptance. It should be noted that individuals in possession of a GRC do not have to undertake any surgery or hormone treatment and thus are often physically indistinguishable to ‘trans women’ who merely self identify as such. In other words both categories can be physically male in all respects.

Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption has expressed the view that although the ruling allows organisations to exclude ‘trans-women’ from women only spaces, they are not necessarily obliged to do so. Given how deeply the trans agenda has become embedded in some parts of society, there may well be many organisations that believe on ideological grounds that ‘trans-women’ should continue to be allowed into women only spaces, and adopt policies to this effect.

The Supreme Court’s decision has caused predictable outrage amongst woke activists, who are clearly not going to roll over and admit defeat without a determined fight. For example the Liberal Democrat Voice website bewails ‘the horrendous and mortifyingly scary Supreme Court judgment’ which has ‘removed hard won trans rights’, adding that ‘necessary changes in the law’ will be needed ‘to make sure that woman and man are not determined by biological sex’. Such changes ‘will need careful drafting to ensure that women will include those born as women and those who have changed gender’. So the delusional madness has not gone away.

The necessary response to this subversion must be to repeal all transgender legislation, thus ending absurdities such as gender recognition certificates which conflict with biological reality. Transgender people have always enjoyed the right to express their delusion that they are a different sex to that into which they were born, given that there has never been any law forbidding them making such claims and living their life accordingly. However, the right that they have been foolishly given to browbeat the rest of society to accept their delusion as reality should be taken from them.