A landmark ruling by the highest court in Britain, declaring that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, has been welcomed by Christians and women’s rights groups around the world.
Five judges of the UK Supreme Court concluded that a woman is legally “a biological female”.
They were hearing a case brought by campaign group For Women Scotland against the Scottish government, arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to people that are born female.
The court had to decide the proper interpretation of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 which applies across Britain.
The Equality Act provides protection against discrimination on the basis of various characteristics, including “sex” and “gender reassignment”.
The judges weighed up what that law means by “sex” — whether it means biological sex, or legal “certificated” sex as defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFINITION OF A “WOMAN”
The Scottish government argued the 2004 legislation was clear that obtaining a A$12 self-identified Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) amounts to a change of sex “for all purposes”.
Relatively few people have GRCs.
For Women Scotland argued for a “common sense” interpretation of the words “man” and “woman”, telling the court that sex is an “immutable biological state”.
Supreme Court deputy president Lord Patrick Hodge who led the panel announced the verdict: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the definition of the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”
“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.”
Lord Hodge stressed transgender people still had wide-ranging protections against discrimination and harassment.
Trans activist groups disagreed.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The judgement means men with gender certificates saying they are a woman – in some cases self-proclaimed without any medical authority – are not women in the eyes of the law.
It’s the culmination of a long-running legal battle which could have major ramifications for how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.
Already, the chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Baroness Kishwer Falkner has vowed to pursue the National Health Service (NHS) if it does not follow the new guidance on single-sex spaces.
Currently, the NHS guidance says trans people should be accommodated according to the way they dress, their names and their pronouns.
Following the court ruling, that will no longer be legal.
REACTIONS TO THE LANDMARK RULING
For Women Scotland members and supporters were jubilant, saying in a statement: “This is a landmark victory for every woman who has been told to sit down, shut up, and make way.”
“It puts a clear boundary around what it means to be female in law and pushes back against a men’s rights movement that has tried to colonise womanhood.”
Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney said his government accepted the judgement.
“The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster,” he acknowledged.
“We will now engage on the implications of the decision.”
A UK government spokesman said it would bring “clarity and confidence for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges and sports clubs”.
“Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”
REACTIONS OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS
Women’s rights advocate Sex Matters stated: “The court has given the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not paperwork.”
Its chief executive Maya Forstater proclaimed: “Gender self-ID is dead”.
Harry Potter author and fierce supporter of female sex-based rights JK Rowling posted: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court.”
“In winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.”
A LEADING UK CHRISTIAN GROUP’S RESPONSE
The UK director of the Evangelical Alliance and former barrister Peter Lynas said the judgement brought much-needed clarity to an area that has become highly contested in recent years.
He added that “the vibe shift is real” — a reference to the increasing sense that a cultural shift is underway from strident progressive ideology.
Mr. Lynas expects the ruling to have “big implications” for policy in businesses and workplaces.
He also encouraged Christians to see it as a “missional moment” to have conversations with their colleagues about what it might mean.
WHAT COULD UK JUDGEMENT MEAN FOR AUSTRALIA?
Australian courts could now take a closer look at the UK judgment, especially leading up to the appeal against last year’s Federal Court decision where transgender person Roxanne Tickle was ruled to have been discriminated against, after being refused access to the women’s-only site called Giggle.
Christian women’s rights campaigner Kirralie Smith noted on her Binary website: “Here in Australia, we are still suffering under the weight of laws that should be relegated to the realm of nightmarish fairytales.”
“Men who claim to *feel* like women have more legal protections than women.”
“We can take heart that in the USA, and now the UK, laws have been reset to reflect reality and protect women on the basis of sex.”
“But if we keep speaking the truth and holding our leaders accountable, it’s only a matter of time before we turn it around here too.”
Family First national director Lyle Shelton said his Christian-values party welcomed the UK ruling and called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton to clarify the definition of a woman in Australia.
Mr Shelton observed they go to the polls in two weeks committed “to retain Australia’s farcical definition of a woman in the Sex Discrimination Act.“
He underlined that “every one of Family First’s 100 candidates knows what a woman is, and is prepared to fight for the truth if elected.”
