The Supreme Court has unanimously decided that, in law, a woman is a person born female, while sex is binary and a matter of biology.
The court has upheld law, science and the common-sense understanding of language and physiology shared by most people.
The decision clarifies something which should never have been in question. Women’s rights have for years been undermined by false interpretations of the law, deliberately promoted by an aggressive and well-funded trans-activist lobby.
This lobby has been supported by influential gender ideologues in government and council departments, schools, health services and the criminal justice system – even charities and private companies whose CEOs showed scant regard for female clients and customers.
A man was a woman if he said he was and anyone who questioned this was accused of “hate” or “unkindness”. Women who objected were pilloried as “terfs” (trans exclusionary radical feminists).
Some lost jobs while others were forced out of university courses or welfare services. Some vulnerable prisoners had to ensure imprisonment with male abusers.
Ordinary women who challenged this orthodoxy were threatened with violence, including rape and death threats.
The recent London demonstration against the Supreme Court ruling provided graphic evidence of this, along with a clear illustration of the Metropolitan Police’s shameful reluctance to challenge it.
Sex was always a legally “protected characteristic” under the Equality Act but for years public servants treated it as if it was not.
The word “sex” was omitted from policy documents, equality statements, HR application forms, even health and crime records, frequently replaced by the word “gender”, understood as a self-discerned personal identity.
Despite the fact that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, while gender and gender identity are not, those with power over our lives, from minor officials to heads of major organisations, taught us to act as if the law had changed, that sex could be assigned rather than observed and that “non-binary” identities are scientifically valid and trump biological sex.
This was what came to be known as “Stonewall law” and it ruled supreme in many places, including Brighton and Hove where, across the city, traditionally women-only services were quietly abandoned and, in schools, children were told lies.
In 2021, our NHS health trust gained national publicity as the first to introduce gender-inclusive language to maternity services such as “chest feeding” and “birthing parent” while the words “woman” and “mother” quietly disappeared from documents. Significantly, men’s health leaflets retained sex-specific language.
Also in 2021, while the trust paraded its progressive credentials, its maternity services were reported by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to be “unsafe, inadequate and poorly led”.
Things didn’t improve. In 2024, a further CQC report rated inpatient maternity services as “inadequate”, citing problems with staffing, training, unsafe practices and poor governance.
In the wake of these reports, nine bereaved families have called for a national inquiry into our maternity services.
Elsewhere in Brighton, Sussex University has been fined £585,000 by the Office for Students (OfS) for failing to uphold freedom of speech, particularly concerning gender identity.
The university gained notoriety when its students pursued a public campaign of harassment against Professor Kathleen Stock, a lecturer who had questioned gender ideology.
The bullying was so severe that Sussex Police said that they couldn’t guarantee her safety. Eventually, again in 2021, she was forced out.
Local academics, students and the police need to re-examine their behaviour and decisions in this case because Professor Stock did nothing more than uphold the law and courteously assert scientific fact. She deserved respect and effective protection. Her treatment shames us all.
Another local woman badly betrayed is Sarah Summers, a survivor of male sexual abuse, who in 2021 turned to Brighton charity Survivors’ Network for help.
She attended weekly group sessions with other women survivors and these were helpful and supportive.
However, when a trans-woman joined her women’s group, she no longer felt safe and left the group, asking if a single-sex group for women could be provided.
Despite there being another specialised group available for trans, non-binary and intersex survivors, she was told it was charity policy to allow anyone identifying as a woman to join its women’s group.
Network staff advised Ms Summers to find another service in Brighton, though none existed. She was reportedly removed from the Network’s mailing list and blocked on Twitter (now X).
Ms Summers is taking Survivors’ Network to court on the ground of sex discrimination. In the years she has been waiting for her case to be heard, our city has continued to deny women and girls sex-specific services.
Given the Supreme Court’s ruling, all national and local government policies and practices touching on equalities need to be urgently reviewed and amended to ensure full compliance – including in our city.
However irritating it may have been to witness Keir Starmer’s recent apparent change of heart, along with his shameless assertion that the government has “always” protected sex-based services, there’s little doubt this undignified reverse-ferret will assist legally exposed local charities, councils and NHS trusts (such as our own) to make the changes needed.
However, if decisive action to protect sex-based rights is not taken, I predict a flurry of successful local legal actions. Such defeats may arguably be richly deserved but they will cost local taxpayers dear.
Jean Calder is a campaigner and journalist. For more of her work, click here.
Good article. I think Brighton and Hove Council need to rethink and lead on this issue by agreeing (as the Labour government has as well as the SNP leadership) with this ruling and starting the process of finding ways to protect women in terms of single sex spaces while looking at alternatives such as third spaces and alternative services for those that use gender identity to determine who they are. Brighton council need to lead on this issue and make clear that they accept the differences and different needs and not ignoring the fact that 51% of Brighton residents are women.
Excellent article. I do hope Brighton & Hove Council take the Supreme Court decision seriously & start to row back their pushing of trans ideology.
Thank you Brighton and Hove News for this coherent article by Jean Calder. As a Feminist charity, we welcome the clarity brought by the Supreme Court judgement. We look forward to the FiLiA conference being held in Brighton – a city (rightly) celebrated for it’s commitment to progressive values and pluralism.
Terrible, uncritical article on the hopelessly ill-considered decision from the Supreme Court. The ruling will make nobody safer or happier, even the most gender critical.
It is the complete opposite of what you have written. All they have done is clarify the meaning of “woman”. Trans people are still protected, just not to the detriment of women’s safety anymore. Grow up.
How was the previous situation to the detriment of women’s safety? And how are women safer now? Who enforces this and how – does everyone need to carry their birth certificate with them at all times so the toilet guard can check? What of people born intersex or misgendered at birth through genuine error? Or is it basically as it was before – people in public toilets can take it upon themselves to accuse any stranger of being in the wrong facilities based on vibes? Because much as transvestigators may believe they can ‘always tell’, I’m betting they can’t, with miserable consequences for all involved.
ok, here’s one of dozens. Clair/John Goodier. 60. Cheshire England. Convicted for animal abuse and paedophilia in 2021. Previous convictions include inciting a minor into prostitution and/or porn in 2005, possession of images in 2009. Both these convictions given suspended sentences.
And how would the Supreme court decision affect any of that? Did the animal abuse take place at a women-only book group? This is a foundational part of GC mythmaking – “Oh look at this crime a trans person did”. They were crimes before the ruling and they’re still crimes now. The ruling wouldn’t prevent any of those crimes, or make them any more criminal. Criminalising things that aren’t sex crimes doesn’t reduce sex crimes. Reform of the police and/or the CPS might, but that would cost money and take time and effort, so instead, more transphobia, which won’t reduce or prevent crime or aid in its prosecution, but is at least cheap.
The ruling makes it safer for 51% of the population and it restores rights and sanity for everyone. If biological men ignore the law now it’s been clarified and continue to access women’s protected spaces anyway, at the very least it exposes their utter contempt for womens rights and wellbeing and highlights exactly why they should have no place in those spaces.
How does it make them safer? People who invaded women’s spaces to commit assault before the ruling were already breaking the law when they committed assault. The appalling rates of detection and prosecution are not for want of a binary conception of gender – they are products of a longstanding ambivalence in this country’s major institutions towards violent crimes against women, including trans women.
Finally someone with a functioning brain.
This is only making things worse for everyone, it’s a shame people are too blind to see.
Thank you for this article. Brighton council has been one of the worst in the country for listening to trans organisations and ignoring women. I hope the Supreme Court ruling will force them to realise that we have rights too, even if any change is due to fear of litigation rather than any real regard for women.
Thank you for this excellent article setting out the facts, the disservice that has been done to women nationally and locally by the encroachment upon our rights and the pressure we face to privilege men’s feelings over biology and women’s safety. Let’s hope that B&H Council will not delay in upholding women’s rights and revising its Stonewall advised policy documents.
Thank you Jean for making it clear what women have been expected to accept of the last 10 years or so. I am relieved that the Supreme Court has explicitly explained what we all knew was true. Now perhaps women will be able to meet openly without being harassed by trans activists.
Who wants to bet how long it will be before we see Jean on here trying to explain why she was caught harassing people in toilets?
As an example of the logical dead ends reached we had women being raped in women’s only wards by trans women, the police not investigating as they were told there were no men on the ward. The other one that I recall is the women’s domestic violence support group and hostel allowing trans women to be there, when clearly abused women under their care would struggle to deal with this. Those who objected were ejected by the people who were being paid to help them.
This ruling should never have been necessary but I am pleased, for the sake of the 51% of our population- women who were born as women.