A case that was seven years in the making culminated in a Supreme Court ruling on 16 April 2025 that clarified biological sex was not the same as certificated sex and hence transwomen were not women as articulated in the Equality Act 2010. Gender critical (GC) women activists who had previously lost the case in both the Outer and Inner House divisions of the Court of Session, which is the highest civil court in Scotland were jubilant. They are a reviled group and had fought a lonely battle, with the vast array of human rights, feminist and LGBT organisations, political parties, trade unions, academia and media firmly ranged against them. Despite articulating views that the majority of the population held, their voices could only be heard in a small selection of conservative media and podcasts. So the clarification by the Supreme Court which was a unanimous decision was greeted with a sense of shock even by the GC campaigners. Such has been the subversion of language, science, law and common sense in recent years that hearing a most fundamental truth confirmed by the highest court in the country seems surreal.
The Labour government seemed taken aback by the ruling but a reverse ferret occurred with Bridget Philipson, Harriet Harman and Anas Sarwar claiming that they had always stood by women while Labour “feminists” like Stella Creasy diligently stuck to her ball-carrying duty. Keir Starmer who was very sure of the law and that some women had a penis has not commented on the ruling. Much of the Labour backbench seems obdurate on the issue and its front bench seems divided as a whatsapp conversation revealed by the Daily Mail yesterday seems to indicate. The leak could only have come from inside and everyone has their favourite suspect. The Greens and Libdems are a lost cause. Kemi Badenoch spoke for the country :
Saying “trans women are women” was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either.
A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious.
Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
The era of… https://t.co/IKjTxwkgoB
— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) April 16, 2025
That many women were punished for speaking the truth is fact. As the women on Mumsnet were celebrating, Justine Roberts the founder of the site dropped in to say how much pressure the site itself had faced for allowing women a voice (even one confined to a naughty corner) :
It’s been severely testing at times – there were moments I genuinely thought we might never see the tide turn, or at least not in our generation. And in the meantime, Mumsnet risked being permanently labelled as bigoted, vicious, and ‘on the wrong side of history’.
A fair number of organisations pulled their advertising under pressure from activists – both internal and external. I’m sure there were many more we never heard from who simply steered clear. Commercial partnerships became noticeably harder to secure. The low point was discovering we’d been blacklisted on instruction from the top brass at Barclays – just weeks before their CEO resigned over concealing ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
When we included a call to clarify the definition of sex in the Equality Act in our 2024 Mumsnet Manifesto, Ocado – who had been excited about a partnership – abruptly pulled out, citing Mumsnet’s “hateful political views”. Despite repeated attempts to explain our position – as a platform committed to amplifying women’s voices – they’ve refused to speak to us ever since.
Nonetheless, even in the darkest moments, when I feared the site might not survive, we never considered banning discussion of this issue altogether. That would have been completely contrary to what Mumsnet is about: a space for mothers to talk about what matters to them. We’ve always believed in the power of respectful, open discussion – especially on difficult topics. And again and again, users have told us that Mumsnet has helped them change their minds, or at least understand a different point of view.
On the issue of women’s rights, I know some felt we policed conversations too tightly at times. But please remember the pressure we were under. A single sentence, taken out of context and amplified by activists on social media, could result in advertisers – already jittery, particularly during Covid – disappearing overnight and without the advertising we simply cannot cover our running costs and the site would have folded. We were also aware that some activists, posing as users, were deliberately trying to bait others into saying something that could be used to damage us.
Ocado sent out a perfunctory apology after angry women started a boycott. Barclays (which spends a lot on LGBT outreach in Singapore for example) is unlikely to respond.
Many media outlets have framed the ruling not as a vindication of women’s sex-based rights but as a loss of trans rights. No surprise there. Many employers and charities have rushed out statements reassuring all that they remain committed to trans inclusiveness. The unions especially the teachers’ unions are acting as if concentration camps for trans people are going to be set up next week. Over twenty unions and the SWP types convened protests in London and elsewhere. Statues were defaced, violent signs threatening harm to Terfs (bullets, hanging, piss on their heads) were displayed and there was much invective against the Terfs, JK Rowling and the Supreme Court (charmingly described as the Supreme C*nt on one sign). And then there was the piss, actual urine into bottles. It is a sexual fetish (as admitted by a trans group, Pissed Off Trannies who threw gallons of urine outside the ECHR office a couple of years ago) as well as the most blokish way of asserting male territorial rights. Winning hearts and all that. Transactivism is a movement which started with high levels of public sympathy but as the reality of actually living with and dealing with these loons’ demands becomes more and more apparent, public sentiment towards them has cooled significantly.
Yes, I said the Greens were a lost cause but one needs to have their MP, the deeply stupid and malevolent Maggie Chapman slandering the Supreme Court on record. The hysteria has been entertaining : the Supreme Court has been accused of acting in the pay of shadowy ultra-fascist billionaires and JK Rowling has been accused of being to feminism what Andrew Tate is to incels.
The Deputy Convener of the Equalities Committee, @MaggieChapman, said yesterday afternoon in Aberdeen that she sees “bigotry, prejudice and hatred” coming from the @UKSupremeCourt.
Extraordinary. #WomenAreWatching@ForWomenScot @TessWhite4NE @AshReganMSP @PamGosalMSP pic.twitter.com/nzZtOUmw44
— Elaine Miller, Venus Envy (@GussieGrips) April 21, 2025
The establishment is revving for a fight back.
As indicated, many organisations will continue with the ‘inclusive’ status quo while they pressure Labour to enact legislation (likely to be unpopular and challenged) or take the case to the European Court of Human Rights which is unlikely to succeed legally. In practical terms the establishment will do what it likes and there will be no significant practical change but the SC legal clarification will aid anyone who is going to court or an employment tribunal over sex-based disputes. Three Scottish mums broke the legal back of trans ideology. They met on Mumsnet and they wouldn’t wheesht.
Update:
It took a week but Woman’s Hour finally deigned to interview Susan Smith of the For Women Scotland group who brought about this Supreme Court ruling.
“We always believed this was the law. So in a way, nothing has changed, but in another sense, everything has changed.”
The incredible Susan Smith of @ForWomenScot on @BBCWomansHour this morning 🔥 pic.twitter.com/mcZY0VYqi3
— Sex Matters (@SexMattersOrg) April 23, 2025
