Breaking News: Suzanne Moore celebrates on The Telegraph as she urges Starmer to take note. “We know what a woman is, and it’s not a man waving a certificate.”
To Starmer and his party colleagues who have been insisting for years that women can have a penis, men can have a cervix, and children are not born with a biological sex, one must ask: was it really necessary to go all the way to the Supreme Court to define what a woman is?
Similarly, to the 388 colleagues at The Guardian who, five years ago, called for Moore’s dismissal and the banning of her “transphobic” articles for asserting that biological sex exists, is it still considered a crime of opinion to hold such views?
The Legal Definition of Woman: Biology Wins
Last Tuesday, English judges unanimously ruled that in the Equality Act of 2010, the term “sex” refers to biological sex, real and binary, not the one declared through a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). In simple terms: no matter how many forms are filled out, pills are taken, or surgeries undergone, biology remains unchanged.
It seems this was only a belief held by certain Scottish officials (particularly former Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon), who thought a certificate was enough to access protections reserved for acquired sex. This belief was formalized in the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act voted in Edinburgh in 2018, under which even transgender individuals born male could fall under the so-called “pink quotas.”
What is a Woman? The Supreme Court Decides
The question “What is a woman?” has now reached the highest court in the UK after the feminist group For Women Scotland challenged the Scottish government’s interpretation: had it been accepted, it would have set a precedent for all spaces reserved for women. A five-pound piece of paper would have granted a man access to shelters, changing rooms, hospital wards, and even female prisons (does anyone remember the Isla Bryson scandal, born Adam Graham, convicted of raping two women and transferred to a women’s prison?).
A handful of activists, supported and funded by J.K. Rowling, with the help of LGB Alliance, Sex Matters, and The Lesbian Project, has defied a system that for years responded with ostracism, epithets, and dismissals. The Prime Minister branded them as “bigots,” “misogynists,” “racists,” while Amnesty, media, and social platforms fueled moral outrage. Until the verdict.
“The era of being told that some women have a penis is over. Hallelujah!”
“Once again, the courts have said what politics did not have the courage to say,” comments Moore. It’s easy to imagine the relief felt by Keir Starmer (Tory leader Kemi Badenoch added, “The era of being told that some women have a penis is over. Hallelujah!”). “It’s a bright victory and a lesson for all.”
A lesson also for the BBC, which hypocritically commented, “There are no winners.” Judge Patrick Hodge warned against reading the verdict as a triumph of one side over the other, reminding that it “does not remove protection from trans individuals.” But it’s hard not to call it a victory for those who, to defend reality, lost careers, jobs, and voices.
A Woman Erased: The Price of Dissent
For years, there has been an effort to erase the word “woman” and replace it with “menstruator,” “people with a cervix,” “vagina bearers.” “Witches” who believed in biological sex like Rowling were hunted down, and TERFs like Kathleen Stock or Julie Bindel were banned from universities.
One might think of Sandie Peggie, a Scottish nurse who faces dismissal for opposing the presence of a male colleague, without a GRC, in the women’s locker room. A man who claims to be a “biological woman” and asserts that sex is “a nebulous concept.” Or Jennifer Melle, investigated for misgendering after calling a two-meter-tall, handcuffed patient “Mr.”
Ostracism Against Bindel and Others
Julie Bindel recalled all this on The Mail: years of marginalization, threats, protests, culminating in a violent attack at the University of Edinburgh – the same institution she would like to see “metaphorically razed to the ground.”
It is now crucial to take the verdict seriously. “Newspapers must again report the sex of crime perpetrators,” writes Bindel, “because too many men have been labeled ‘women’ after committing abuses.” “Police and magistrates must stop recording only the gender identity of those arrested,” “employers must be trained on the Equality Act,” “and there must be recognition and apologies for all of us who have lost jobs, faced trials, endured gaslighting, censorship, insults.” It’s not a victory against trans individuals, but against an ideology that sought to redefine reality by decree. Now the battle shifts to the NHS, police, sports federations, and schools. So the verdict is not ignored.
Now Politics Must Speak
It’s time for politics to speak up.
Spiked wrote that yesterday’s landmark ruling by the Supreme Court is the perfect opportunity for the Labour party to slowly distance itself from the crime scene. Newspapers predict a wave of legislative revisions, legal battles, and compensation claims. However, the issue is far from settled. When a minister today states that “we have always supported spaces reserved based on biological sex,” but yesterday claimed that trans women with male genitalia had the right to use female restrooms; and when a prime minister asserts that “99.9% of women do not have a penis,” the problem goes beyond ideology.
“Certainly,” concludes Spiked, “there are more gender ideologues in the Labour party than in any other area of British public life. But the real question is: why did the leaders listen to them? […] The Labour party’s embrace of transgenderism shows how vulnerable technocrats are to trends […] and how our rulers have lost sight of a worldview. Without ideology, without a horizon, they cling to transgenderism, critical race theory, climate alarmism, to give meaning – or at least a semblance of purpose – to an otherwise empty power.” It’s not just about resisting the latest madness. It’s about preparing for the next one.
