In a broadly meaningful decision, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Wednesday that the country's laws do not consider trans women to be real women.
The court has held that the terms “male”, “female”, and “gender” refer to biological sex,” the judiciary said in a reporter's summary of their decision.
Scotch and Quota
The case involved Scottish law in 2018 that sets sex quotas to increase the number of women on the Public Commission. The Scottish government has issued statutory guidance that transgender women have qualified as women for the purposes of their law.
Trina Badge, director of the Women Scotland (FWS) of Teminist Group, claimed that he had taken the government to court for guidance:
To connect the definition of sex with the usual meaning means that the public committee consists of 50% of men and 50% of men (trans women), yet still able to legally meet the target of female representatives.
The referenced “certificate” is officially known as a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The 2004 law allows trans people to obtain GRC and legally change their gender.
The Scottish courts rejected statutory guidance, and the government attempted a different approach. We have issued new guidance stating that the definition of “women” in the law is the same as the UK's Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). However, the extra wrinkle has been added that says that GRC possession is a woman, and that she is entitled to be a woman.
The FWS also tried that guidance. After the Scottish court refused to appeal, the FWS appealed to the Supreme Court, which accepted, leading to this week's decision.
The court declared:
The meanings of the terms “sex”, “man” and “female” in EA 2010 refer to biological sex, as other interpretations make EA 2010 inconsistent and impossible to operate. Therefore, those who have a GRC for a female gender are not within the definition of “female” in EA 2010, and the statutory guidance issued by the Scottish minister is incorrect. (Quotations are omitted.)
That explained further:
Interpreting “sex” as a recognized gender goes beyond the definition of “male” and “female” and thus cuts out the protected features of sex in an inconsistent manner.
Split privileges
As should be clarified from the above, the Anti-Discrimination Act is the root of the problem. In the UK, by granting certain groups of people with “protected traits” privileges that are not granted to other groups, the law creates a hostile relationship between the two, clashing for their continued power.
Certainly, court decisions are welcome, but they will not abolish EA 2010. It simply decides who will get what privileged pie. The court said the ruling “does not remove protections from trans people with or without GRC.” These individuals are free to file complaints claiming discrimination either due to their transgender status or perceived sex (“trans women can claim sex discrimination because she is perceived as a woman”).
Cheers and jealous
The FWS, of course, celebrated the decision. Co-director Susan Smith said:
Everyone knows what sex is and you can't change it. It's common sense, basic common sense, and the fact that we were down the rabbit hole where people were trying to deny science and deny reality, and hopefully this would bring us back to reality.
Author JK Rowling reportedly donated $92,000 to FWS, and posted to X, saying she was “prideful to know.”
The right crossing group was, of course, unhappy with the court. Scottish Trans has issued a statement saying they were “really shocked” by the decision. LGBTQ group Stonewall said the ruling was “incredibly worrying for the trans community.” And, of course, trans activist Ella Morgan told CNN, “For the first time today, I'm scared of walking down the hallway.”
Legal change
This may seem like nothing. So what if Scotland has to limit public commission women to actual women? However, as Al Jazeera reported, “The case originally began in Scotland, but the court's interpretation of the law will be effective throughout the UK, including Britain and Wales.”
The British and Scottish governments accepted the decision and began reviewing their policies in light of it.
British transport police have already changed their search policy to require that suspects be searched by same-sex officers rather than “acquired gender,” Al Jazeera wrote.
The Scottish hospital told Al Jazeera that it was to “cautiously consider the judgment and its implications” of nurses' hospital halts that opposed sharing the change room with trans women.
Further changes to UK laws and regulations are expected. Some are welcome. Some people are not, like the suggestion that the dedifferentiation law will be amended to treat them as members of their alleged gender.
Still, the fact that until at least recently, one of the courts in the world's most transparent countries was found to be male and women as women is worth some applause. Nevertheless, as observed by Subsack columnist John Leek,
This is evidence of how awfully reasonable adults have been defeated in the madness of the past decade that this obvious fact affirmation is the cause of celebration.
