In a landmark ruling that cuts through the fog of ideological confusion, the UK Supreme Court has restored clarity to a question that until recently would have seemed absurd to ask: What is a woman?
In For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, the court ruled unequivocally that under the Equality Act 2010, the word “woman” refers to biological females, not individuals who identify as women through self-declaration or legal certification. In doing so, the court dealt a decisive blow to the policy trend of conflating sex and gender identity—an experiment that has, for years now, put women’s rights, safety, and fairness under siege.
The Ideological Shift: From Biology to Identity
Over the past decade, Western institutions—from governments and schools to corporations and NGOs—have increasingly adopted the idea that sex is not a biological reality but a “social construct.” Under this model, anyone who identifies as a woman becomes one, regardless of biology.
The consequences of this shift have been profound. Biological men identifying as women have been allowed into female-only spaces like changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, and shelters. In some cases, the result has been disastrous.
In 2021, for example, a male inmate who identified as female was transferred into a women’s prison in Scotland, only to sexually assault several female inmates. In Canada, similar policies led to high-risk male offenders gaining access to women’s facilities. In sports, trans-identifying biological males have dominated women’s competitions, with notable cases in swimming, cycling, and weightlifting.
Feminism’s Dilemma
Mainstream feminism, long a defender of women’s rights based on sex, found itself fractured. Radical feminist groups like Women’s Place UK and For Women Scotland began sounding the alarm: If the word “woman” includes anyone who identifies as one, how can sex-based rights be defended? Who is entitled to female-only services, programs, or protections?
It’s not an academic question. Under UK law, women are a protected class under the Equality Act, entitled to single-sex spaces and opportunities. Redefining “woman” to include biological men undermines this protection and makes the law incoherent.
A Judgement Rooted in Reality
The Supreme Court judgment brings the discussion back to solid ground. The court held that the 2018 Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act—intended to increase female representation—could not include biological men, even those with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), within its definition of “woman.”
Their reasoning was clear: the Equality Act protects people based on sex, not gender identity. While transgender individuals are rightly protected from discrimination under the separate category of “gender reassignment,” they do not redefine what a man or woman is.
Why It Matters
This decision is not just a technical legal matter; it’s a cultural turning point. It says that our laws, our language, and our public policies must be grounded in reality. A man is a man. A woman is a woman. These aren’t “hateful” or “exclusionary” statements—they are biological facts.
And acknowledging those facts is essential to preserving fairness in sport, safety in public services, and integrity in women’s representation.
A Win for Women—and for Logic
The ruling also serves as vindication for thousands of women—mothers, athletes, rape survivors, professionals—who have been labelled bigots and transphobes simply for asserting their right to sex-based protections. Groups like For Women Scotland, who stood firm despite immense social pressure, have done a service not only to women but to the wider society.
This is not about denying the dignity or humanity of transgender individuals. It is about ensuring that the rights of one group do not come at the expense of another. No one should be discriminated against. But no one should be gaslit into pretending that sex doesn’t matter.
Where to From Here?
With this ruling, the UK has taken a step back from the brink of ideological extremism. It signals a possible rebalancing, where legitimate rights and protections can coexist without distorting foundational truths.
This is a victory for women. A victory for law. And above all, a victory for common sense.
