A UK Court Actually Did Something Sane
On the 15th April 2025, the UK Supreme Court made a ruling on the Equality Act 2010 relating to the definition of the word ‘woman’ under that act. The court ruled that the definition of woman under the Act is biological, that is, the only people who count as women under the Act are actual women and girls, and men who claim to be women, even those with a so-called ‘Gender Recognition Certificate’ (GRC) are not women for the purposes of the Act.
I will try and explain this ruling from the start by clarifying the meanings of the terms used above for anyone who is not in the UK or who is unaware of these pieces of legislation.
The Legal Madness of the Gender Recognition Act
In order to explain the decision and its context we need to look at the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), passed in 2004. The GRA allows for people to lie about their sex by getting a certificate that recognises them as the other ‘gender’ in law. This only applies to a man being ‘recognised’ as a woman and vice versa, and does not allow for ‘recognition’ of other identities people have come up with, such as ‘non-binary’, etc.
This legislation is not a complete free for all, because it does require those seeking to get a GRC to meet certain limited criteria such as living in their ‘new gender’ for 2 years and pay an extremely nominal fee (it used to be around £180, but this was reduced to £5 a few years ago). Nevertheless it allows the lie of a male woman and a female man to be recognised in law which makes it absurd regardless.
The Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act was designed to ‘pull together’ all discrimination acts (such as sex and race discrimination) into one overriding law. As such, it contains nine characteristics that are protected under law, for example when it comes to employers discriminating against applicants.
The question put before the Supreme Court related to the protected characteristic of sex. They were asked to interpret what the word ‘sex’ means in the Act, and whether it means what it means in reality (I.e. male and female) or whether there are certain men who can be classified as belonging to the ‘female sex’ legally.
The Court ruled that the meaning of the Act is that sex means biological sex, I.e. male and female are two discrete categories (based on reality) for the purposes of applying the Act.
Implications
The implications of this ruling mean that there is a solid legal foundation for excluding men who claim to be women from certain places, regardless of identity or GRC. The Equality Act allows for exclusion of one sex or the other from certain spaces if it is proportionate. For example, excluding men from jobs at a rape crisis or domestic violence shelter, while technically discrimination, is proportionate under the Act because it protects abused women from further victimisation.
Is this issue finished?
Many people in the UK have declared victory over the insanity of transgenderism due to this ruling.
However, I am not confident that we are done with the transgender madness. There is still a large amount of money behind this agenda, and when there is money pushing something we can always be sure it will continue to be promoted by those factions of the elite (pharmaceutical companies, etc).
There is also the possibility that the government can change the law. This ruling is only an interpretation of the Equality Act. If the government wished to introduce a new piece of legislation overriding that Act, they could always do so. The current UK PM Keir Starmer has flip flopped endlessly on the issue. Starmer has no actual principles, so he would be open-minded about doing anything the establishment wants. In the short term however this scenario is unlikely.
The lie in law of the Gender Recognition Act remains. The issue cannot be legally resolved until the GRA is repealed. This is without considering the question of broader resistance against establishment agendas, which requires broader thinking than simply sorting out a legal mess that should never have come to exist.