UK Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman

[Eric J (Viking)]

Heading in the right direction. I bet Michele Obama has got the right hump about this.

Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman

15 April 2025
Updated 3 hours ago
Judges at the UK Supreme Court have unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.
It marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle which could have major implications for how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.
The court sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against the Scottish government arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to people that are born female.
Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, and stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people.

The Scottish government argued in court that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.
The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain.
Lord Hodge said the central question was how the words "woman" and "sex" are defined in the legislation.
He told the court: "The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
"But 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."
He added that the legislation gives transgender people "protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender".

More in link further reading.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo

[Le Chat]

And about time too. :clap2:

[ExomatrixTV]

quote: "You cannot hate the MSM enough. Rather than carry the emotional live statements from women campaigners outside the Supreme Court, Sly News instead tries to undermine today’s unanimous decision. The male presenter: “How people feel in reality can often be different to the reality of what is in the law.” Fxck you. Will you be applying that to all areas of the law now?" unquote
1912470764227289182
source (https://x.com/JohnKuhles1966/status/1912470764227289182)


The Wokeness Epidemic (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?115313-The-Wokeness-Epidemic)

[RatRodRob...RRR]

Heading in the right direction. I bet Michele Obama has got the right hump about this.

Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman

15 April 2025
Updated 3 hours ago
Judges at the UK Supreme Court have unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.
It marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle which could have major implications for how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.
The court sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against the Scottish government arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to people that are born female.
Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, and stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people.

The Scottish government argued in court that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.
The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain.
Lord Hodge said the central question was how the words "woman" and "sex" are defined in the legislation.
He told the court: "The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
"But 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."
He added that the legislation gives transgender people "protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender".

More in link further reading.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo

Yeah this is a good move in the right direction, but it should Never have got to the point where we had to debate and fight over what it meant to be a "Woman", maybe some common bloody sense is creeping back into society.

[Losus4]

Women were the ones who voted for wokeness and all its destructive machinations, but when it affects them and their way of life, they then seek to rescind on the policies they in their shortsightedness helped implement. When it's only men it affects then they couldn't care less. Read chapter "The War on Masculinity" - https://pdfhost.io/v/XI9OATfoB_Truthbombs for a good overview on how giving women the vote was the seed that began the decline of Western civilisation.

[Vicus]

Stupidity fall on his nose always trough his own weight...

From where I grow up,southernmost country on the planet, we weren't immune to the west propaganda,by the way ,this term is Spanish and in this language the meaning is total neutral: advertising,publicity, for products,things, locals,etc.

Angle /Saxons pirate could not use those terms in English because too obvious ... then used an "exotic" term to vilified everything they don't liked for their "Agendas"...

Trough movie theaters and later TV and now internet, they always manipulate real world to infect their "Reality"

for example: old movies and TV shows showed first "bad Indians",then "Irish" gangs, then "Italian" Mafia , then"Black" ghettos and gangs, then "Latinos" gangs, then and until right now "Russian" mafia,etc

And the "good "white" "Amerikan" ? well, IF they are "good" citizen they are just drones in their cubicles, IF they are "bad" they are
cooks from whatever drugs or god forbid! Rednecks!

And the "super rich upper class" eternal glorified in endless soap operas only obsess with money,power and sex (everybody fück everybody...)

That is what they "teach" you, to envy and aspirate for...

What is a women and when? :sherlock:

A women is the entrance in this "World" for all of us...

And from when? from the moment she got her period, is a child no more...

ALL natives folks around the world knew that from THE BEGINNING!

Case closed!

[Heart to heart]

How is it that at 88 I have always known I am a WOMAN?

I have given birth to 4 daughters who also know they are WOMEN!

Surely it can’t be that hard to differentiate between the 2 sexes?

Just a reminder once again —- THOSE WHOM THE GODS WISH TO DESTROY THEY FIRST MAKE MAD!

It seems to me the whole world is in a state of complete madness and I am glad I grew up in a time when we knew what was what where young men and young women romanced each other in those wonderful teenage years ♥️

[Vicus]

JK Rowling celebrates after UK Supreme Court rules that trans women are not legally women

“Harry Potter” author JK Rowling cheered the United Kingdom’s supreme court ruling that found transgender women are not legally women — posting pictures of champagne glasses in celebration and praising the women who championed the case.

“Think I might be having a cigar later,” Rowling, 59, wrote on X Wednesday, hours after the ruling was handed down.

The ruling found that the terms “woman” and “sex” included in the nation’s 2010 Equality Act “refer to a biological woman and biological sex”— and not to the social definition of gender, which can be adopted by the individual.

Rowling was a vocal supporter of FWS and has been outspoken against the trans movement – which she views largely as an encroachment of males into female spaces, frequently citing debates over sports, bathrooms, prisons, representation and other public spaces.

She has also characterized many trans activists as bullies, and accused the movement of jeopardizing gay rights.

continue:

https://nypost.com/2025/04/16/world-news/jk-rowling-celebrates-uk-supreme-court-ruling-that-trans-women-are-not-legally-women/

[Tintin]

A fabulous article from Janice Turner published yesterday in The Times newspaper :muscle:

------------

Let’s not downplay this triumph for women
Source: archive.is (https://archive.is/2025.04.18-185407/https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/lets-not-downplay-this-triumph-for-women-kjblm09zb#selection-1373.0-1373.41)
Published: April 18th, 2025


Fight for ‘woman’ to be ruled a biological term has been long and bitter — we won’t forget our allies and opponents along the way

Don’t be triumphalist, stay magnanimous in victory, be kind. It took a decade for women to reverse an illegal land grab of our rights. Ten years during which every civil society group turned its back, women lost jobs and livelihoods, were vilified, ostracised and risked violence. Now we’re just supposed to move on?

We will, of course. Because the women outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday never sought this fight. They were human rights lawyers, feminists, leftie journalists, charity stalwarts or family carers used to putting others first. They were neither driven by animus against LGBTQ+ people — many are lesbians — nor on a moral quest. We had a billion better things to do but just could not stay silent when so much was at stake.

So yes, we will move on. Gladly! But before the memory hole sucks away a time of collective madness, when lesbians had penises, rapists were banged up in women’s jails, disabled women were bigots for wanting same-sex intimate care, when we were expected to applaud men who stole our sports and welcome bearded dudes “expanding the bandwidth of womanhood” into our changing rooms, let’s set the record straight.

First, the cowards. After the Supreme Court ruled that “sex” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 were biological terms, up pops Harriet Harman, architect of that very law to say, of course, that’s what she always meant. Well, Harriet, why didn’t you say so before, when Stonewall, having failed to rewrite the law, tried to change the meaning of words? But I suppose you risked being branded a “Terf”. Best wait until the dust settles, and you’re safely Baroness Harman of Peckham, chair of the Fawcett Society, that meltiest chocolate teapot.

Yes, Yvette Cooper, I recall your frozen terror when I suggested, years ago, you make public your concerns about child medical transition. Angela Rayner, Lisa Nandy, we can’t forget — whatever you say now — that in 2020 you signed a 12-point pledge promising to boot out Labour members who believed sex is real. As for the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sanwar, who has “always” supported single-sex spaces, you whipped your party to support self-ID in the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which would have erased every one.

Then there are the pontificating men who, never listening much to women, naturally sympathised with the male-born and relished our witch trials. Men who had nothing — nothing! — to lose yet never once tried to understand our plight. Rory Stewart, Alastair Campbell, David Lammy, James O’Brien, Billy Bragg, David Tennant, John Oliver, or those who, watching the Paris Olympics, thought a male boxer punching women was less hurtful than calling him a man.

Next, the fools, the Tory women fleeing the “nasty party” taint. Caroline Nokes, who voted against same-sex marriage; Theresa May, who abstained; and the expenses scandal pariah Maria Miller, who saw in uncritical, unthinking support for Stonewall’s self-ID plan the hope of easy applause. Thus sparking the war of rights that has left us here with hard new lines drawn, back talking about toilets when — apart from in schools — it was never about that.

For decades, women had no issue with trans women, who’d mainly undergone full surgical transition, using the ladies. We saw them and said nothing, because we are indeed kind and knew they were just quietly living their lives. But self-ID and Stonewall’s “acceptance without exception” campaign demanded anyone in their “trans umbrella”, including male fetishists who filmed themselves masturbating at the mirrors, had a right to be there. And we had no right to object because, as Stonewall’s then CEO, Ruth Hunt, put it, “men will always rape women”, so why fuss about safeguards?

A delicate rights ecosystem, a benign rubbing along, the natural empathy between feminists and gender non-conforming men, were all smashed. Women asking to discuss how self-ID would affect their rights were screamed down, meetings attacked by violent, balaclava-clad protesters, bashing windows and letting off smoke bombs. Meanwhile, on the BBC and elsewhere, trans activists were fêted as saints.

Now the Supreme Court has done what politicians dared not, clarifying what we all knew all along: sex means biology. Women’s stolen rights must be returned. The NHS must settle disgraceful cases in Darlington and Fife of female nurses forced to undress with biological men. The FA, the England and Wales Cricket Board and even community sporting bodies such as Park Run will have to keep all males out of female categories. (Because amateur women deserve their records and victories, as much as men.) Police and the media can stop referring to stubbly “trans” sex offenders as women.

Yes, there is a mess and as always women are expected to clear it up, even though we proposed the compromise solutions — third spaces in loos and changing rooms, open sporting categories — a decade ago. Trans activists rejected them then because they flouted their mantra that trans women are women. They wasted millions in public funds trying to destroy female spaces and services rather than create their own. Maybe Stonewall, which didn’t even bother to intervene on behalf of trans people in the Supreme Court, will do some actual work.

Meanwhile, those who risked everything to say women are adult human females can read this irreducible, scientific truth in an 88-page court judgment and on every front page. Corporations and government bodies will gratefully return to normality, though the Japanese knotweed of gender ideology is deep in their foundations. Soon the collective memory of this crazy, unnecessary, painful struggle will fade.
Women aren’t expecting apologies, though many are deserved, or gratitude for saving basic rights for our granddaughters. Yes, we’ll be kind — we always were — but, cheers! We won — deal with it.



----------------

And here's Professor Robert Winston on BBC Question Time from April 2021:

https://avalonlibrary.net/2021-10-14_Professor_Robert_Winston_on_BBC_Question_Time_You_can%27t_change_your_sex.mp4

Excerpt from his Wiki entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Winston,_Baron_Winston):


Winston has called gender-affirming surgery "mutilation" and has said that "we can remove bits of our body and change our shape and so on but you can't change your sex because that is embedded in your genes in every cell of your body."[9]

Interestingly, I used to work at the RCOG but never had the pleasure of meeting him