This is really breaking news, and apparently settles a roiling controversy in the UK that was most intense in Scotland. Today the UK’s Supreme Court, overturning rulings in Scotland, said that, in law, a “woman” is “a biological woman;” and a trans woman, even with a “gender reassignment certificate” does not legally qualify as a “woman”. Below are three real-time news summaries. Excerpts are indented below the headlines.
First, a Scottish law apparently kicked off the controversy. From Reuters:
Wednesday’s British judgment followed legal action by a campaign group, For Women Scotland (FWS), against guidance issued by the devolved Scottish government that accompanied a 2018 law designed to increase the proportion of women on public sector boards.
The guidance said a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate was legally a woman. FWS, which was backed by lesbian rights groups, had lost its case in the Scottish courts, but the Supreme Court ruled in its favour.
And from the official Supreme Court press summary (h/t Athayde):
This appeal arose in response to the definition of the term “woman” in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 (“ASP 2018”) and associated statutory guidance. This legislation created gender representation targets to increase the proportion of women on public boards in Scotland. The ASP 2018 and the original statutory guidance defined “woman” as including people: (i) with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment; (ii) living as a woman; and (iii) proposing to undergo / undergoing / who have undergone a gender reassignment process. In 2020, the Appellant, a feminist voluntary organisation that campaigns to strengthen women’s rights in Scotland, challenged this guidance. The Inner House found that this statutory definition was unlawful as it involved an area of law reserved to the UK Parliament (equal opportunities) and therefore fell outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament (“FWS1”).
In all the stuff I was able to read this morning, I was unable to find the definition of a “biological woman”, save that it refers to one’s natal sex, though they don’t mention gametes. The ruling does refer to the binary nature of sex (see below). And the ruling implies as well that the word “man” can mean in law only a “biological man” (see below).
Bolding is theirs
The UK supreme court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, in a victory for gender critical campaigners.
Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs). In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, their decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.
It could have far wider ramifications by leading to much greater restrictions on the rights of transgender women to use services and spaces reserved for women, and spark calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.
Lord Hodge told the court the Equality Act (EA) was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate. That affected policy-making on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said.
Hodge urged people not to see the decision “as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”. He said all transgender people had clear legal protections under the 2010 act against discrimination and harassment.
Gender critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, celebrated outside the supreme court in London, alongside other campaigners, after the ruling was announced.
The UK Supreme Court rules that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex
Judges say the “concept of sex is binary” while cautioning that the landmark ruling should not be seen as victory of one side over another
Transgender people still have legal protection from discrimination, the court adds – read the full 88-page judgement here
The Scottish government had argued that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to sex-based protections, while For Women Scotland argued they only apply to people that are born female
For Women Scotland says it’s grateful for the decision after a “long road” of legal battles, while charity Scottish Trans urges people “not to panic”
The Scottish government says it acted “in good faith” and will work with Westminster to understand the full implications of the ruling
“The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”
In fewer than 20 words, Lord Hodge settled a legal debate that has raged in British society for years. It also drove a stake through the heart of a central tenet of the trans lobby: that trans women are women.
The 88-page ruling will be pored over by lawyers. The implications for Westminster and beyond will be vast.
. . .Scotland’s first minister has said the Scottish government “accepts” the ruling of the UK Supreme Court on biological sex, and added that “protecting the rights of all” will inform its response.
In a post on X, John Swinney said: “The Scottish government accepts today’s Supreme Court judgment.
“The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.”
. . .The certificated sex interpretation would have “rendered meaningless” a section of the 2010 Equalities Act dealing with protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, according to the ruling.
This interpretation would mean “a trans woman (a biological male) with a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) who remains sexually oriented to other females would become a same-sex attracted female, in other words, a lesbian” and would lead to an “inevitable loss of autonomy and dignity for lesbians” as well as impacting lesbian clubs and associations.
The judgment continues: “Read fairly, references to sex in this provision can only mean biological sex. People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate.
. . .Kemi Badenoch has said the “era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end”.
The Conservative leader said: “Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in law either.
“This is 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.
“Well done to For Women Scotland!”
The full judgement is here (you can also click on the title page below to see the 88-page ruling), and although I haven’t read it carefully, I’ve quoted four bits that seem relevant.
First, the court emphasizes binary nature of sex, but unfortunately doesn’t give a definition of sex, though it claims that it does (my bolding). The court holds to the “ordinary” meaning of “those plain and unambiguous words”, a meaning that corresponds to the biological characteristics that create a binary. One can interpret that, as I would, as the gametic definition of sex, which is the only definition that creates a dichotomy that, with a few hundredths of a percent of exceptions, conforms to a binary:
171. The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men. Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation. Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group
I Interpret this next part to mean that it’s legal to prohibit trans-identified men (“transwomen”) from competing against biological males. They don’t talk about trans-identified women, but this presumably holds for them, too. If so, that means a strict separation of athletic competition by sex, but perhaps sports in which the sexes perform equally on average could be an exception. The fate of trans-identified women in sports is not really discussed or spelled out, at least not that I can see, but if one holds to a biological definition of sex, the legal fate of trans-identified women would be the same as that of trans-identified men.
236. On the other hand, a biological definition of sex would mean that a women’s boxing competition organiser could refuse to admit all men, including trans women regardless of their GRC status. This would be covered by the sex discrimination exception in section 195(1). But if, in addition, the providers of the boxing competition were concerned that fair competition or safety necessitates the exclusion of trans men (biological females living in the male gender, irrespective of GRC status) who have taken testosterone to give them more masculine attributes, their exclusion would amount to gender reassignment discrimination, not sex discrimination, but would be permitted by section 195(2). It is here that the gender reassignment exception would be available to ensure that the exclusion is not unlawful, whether as direct or indirect gender reassignment discrimination.
The part below implies that the ruling also holds for the word “man”, which has to mean “biological man” rather than a biological woman who has a GRC or identifies as a man.
264. For all these reasons, this examination of the language of the EA 2010, its context and purpose, demonstrate that the words “sex”, “woman” and “man” in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man. These and the other provisions to which we have referred cannot properly be interpreted as also extending to include certificated sex without rendering them incoherent and unworkable.
Finally, this last part disposes of the Scottish government’s regarding one’s sex as being that given on a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). That means that, in Scotland and all over the UK, a transwoman is not identical to a biological woman, nor a transman to a biological man. The mantras “a transwoman is a woman” and a “transman is a man” now hold no legal meaning.
. . . 266. For all these reasons, we conclude that the Guidance issued by the Scottish Government is incorrect. A person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of “woman” for the purposes of sex discrimination in section 11 of the EA 2010. That in turn means that the definition of “woman” in section 2 of the 2018 Act, which Scottish Ministers accept must bear the same meaning as the term “woman” in section 11 and section 212 of the EA 2010, is limited to biological women and does not include trans women with a GRC. Because it is so limited, the 2018 Act does not stray beyond the exception permitted in section L2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act into reserved matters. Therefore, construed in the way that we have held it is to be construed, the 2018 Act is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and can operate to encourage the participation of women in senior positions in public life.
In toto, the ruling seems fair to me, as I never thought that, say, a “transwoman is a woman” and the same for transmen, as I’ve always adhered to the biological sex definition, which gives an almost 100% binary based on one’s evolved system for either producing large, immobile gametes (women) or small mobile gametes (men). This binary holds for all species, but the terms “woman” and “man” have been reserved for humans. It does not “erase” trans people, giving them the same rights as everyone—with the exception of a person of one sex inhabiting spaces that properly belong to people of the other sex (sports, jails, locker rooms, etc.) And as I’ve said endlessly, in all situations where you don’t need sex-specific spaces, trans people should have all the rights of everyone else, and should be treated like everyone else.
h/t: Pyers, Geoff
Music to my ears!!!!!!!!
Well, this is a small step out of the insanity. But I’ve got to say, I’m here shaking my head that “what is a woman” is even an issue. What a world.
“It does not “erase” trans people, giving them the same rights as everyone—with the exception of a person of one sex inhabiting spaces that properly belong to people of the other sex (sports, jails, locker rooms, etc.)”
If a transwoman is not a woman, and would thus be excluded from anything properly belonging to women, which includes very important things beyond sports, such as female-only scholarships and admission to female only universities, preferences for hiring female led businesses (many governments have this provision for contractors), and female quotas on boards of directors, then what “rights” do they have?
I don’t think a trans person has any special “rights”, if by “right” we mean that we all have to go along with their delusion. They should not be ridiculed or abused, and they should have all of the same protections under the law that everyone else has. Nothing more, nothing less.
They have the rights not to be discriminated against or harassed on the basis of their protected characteristic of gender reassignment (so their rights are protected in employment, housing, provision of services, etc. unless those things are lawfully restricted to members of a particular sex and the trans-identifying person is of the opposite sex).
The “protected characteristic of gender reassignment” does not entitle such person to be considered a woman when they are not a biological woman. It is thus a very strange “protected characteristic”. Essentially, it boils down to this:
-A transperson cannot be refused a job or service simply because the are trans. Bog standard anti-discrimination law.
-We all have to be polite and call the 6’4 240lbs biological male (let’s say this person is “Tammie”) at the office a “her” because he says he’s a transwoman.
But at the same time, Tammie should not be allowed in the women’s restroom at work. Tammie cannot be considered a woman when counting the number of female employees at the office. Tammie is not eligible to join the woman’s only volleyball league. You get the point.
Trans activists however would disagree with everything I just wrote in that last paragraph…their definition of “trans rights” would mean that Tammie should be considered a woman with no exceptions.
I have to say, at least the trans activists are logically consistent (albeit starting from a very erroneous premise).
The rest of us seem to occupy this strange space where we know Tammie is not a woman but dare not tell her that to her face.
Re having to be polite and use preferred pronouns, sez who? I may choose to not antagonise the 6’4 240lbs “Tammie” for my own self-protection, but I fully reserve the right to act so foolishly if I decide to. I am assuming that there is nothing in the law etc. that requires me to be “polite”. Right?
No, I mean what you mean: the same rights as anyone else in society, with the exceptions that have been pointed out.
Suppose a required observance of my sect of Christianity was that everyone at work had to down tools and join me in prayer five times a day, and management had to enforce their participation, their sincere, meaningful participation through its HR Dept., backed up by state anti-discrimination statutes. Imagine someone getting fired for saying, “No, I’m not praying to your God. I’m an atheist.” Regardless of how you felt about tolerance generally, I think you would come to loathe me and my Christianity, and seriously question the whole idea of religious freedom as having gone too far. Mutterings of tyranny, and establishment of religion would bubble up.
I think this is what trans ideology does. Its adherents aren’t satisfied with being trans in their own minds. No, the essential nature of being trans is to compel non-trans people to give uptake to their beliefs, like truly annoying religious proselytizers who have blasphemy laws on their side that HR enforces for them. Demanding official punishment for misgendering is one of the non-negotiable demands that trans people make. “Weaponizing kindness” as lawyer Bruce Pardy puts it. “Get out of the ladies’ room, you,” becomes a firing offence. (You think you will be able to enforce the common-sense exceptions to trans rights, but you won’t, because the common-sense exceptions all involve deliberate misgendering. “But of course I’m going to use the ladies’ room. I’m a woman. And btw you just misgendered me!”)
“I have nothing against [insert religious denomination here] as long as they don’t try to shove it down my throat.” Most would probably say the same about trans, as trans. But the nature of trans just is to shove it down our throats. It seems they can’t be trans unless we give obeisance. Anything less is erasure. That’s why, so rumour goes, a smart hiring manager will just shred resumes with pronouns on them. It’s not the implied gender identity the manager is discriminating against. Rather it’s the implied threat that the applicant, if hired, will cause upheavals like demanding good employees be punished for misgendering him and will want the plumbing renovated just for him. That’s what it is just (and smart) to discriminate against: gender expression. “Nothing against trans people if they’d just leave the rest of us alone, like gay people do.” But they can’t. Even asking them to is transphobic.
As long as it is legal to discriminate against people who are narcissistic and sociopathic — and it must be, because everyone says Donald Trump should never have been hired — it will have to be legal to discriminate against overtly trans people.
ISTM that TRAs have their own version of the Great Commission: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Please! Discriminating against people who are sociopathic would be sociopathophobia, a form of erasure that could be classified as a hate speech incident in the UK. Or are things changing in old Bllighty?
Hitchens put it this way:
“One must have the nerve to assert that, while people are entitled to their illusions, they are not entitled to a limitless enjoyment of them and they are not entitled to impose them upon others.“
The moral philosopher Gary Francione said it slightly differently:
“In a pluralistic, liberal society, can we force people to accept as literally true the metaphysical beliefs of others and to live as though those beliefs were literally true? The answer to that determines everything else.”
I sort of prefer the punk radical feminist Jen Izaakson:
“The fact that society believes a man who says he is a woman, instead of a woman who says he is not, is proof that society knows exactly who is the man and who is the woman.”
And while I’m at it this is my current favourite meme:
Sexism: Women should do the dishes.
Equality: Both men and women should do the dishes.
Genderism: Whoever is doing the dishes is the woman.
I will make an analogy here. Christians conceive of themselves (and the rest of us) as ensouled beings who have supernatural souls given to us by God. I don’t agree. Whatever the word “soul” might properly mean, I don’t believe it is a supernatural thing that is independent of the physics and chemistry of the brain and perhaps more generally the nervous system.
Trans activists say they have supernatural essence that is male or female or neither or whatever that is independent of the physical body. I disagree.
Christians may think I am hellbound, but they don’t accuse me of “trying to erase their existence” because I disagree with their metaphysical understanding of their state of existence. Trans activists do.
Good analogy 👍 I would add, when this observation is challenged by a gender cultist, that what is missing is evidence. As with former studies looking for a soul, not a single study disproves the null hypothesis. A key tenet of liberalism is to base belief on evidence. Until there is evidence of GI, the liberal position is to withhold belief.
“shaking my head that ‘what is a woman’ is even an issue.”
Agreed. And every time I hear educated people who ridicule and dismiss with disdain the more conservative or populist masses, I remind myself of which social classes invented and propagated this madness.
Congratulations to those in the UK, even if it be a partial victory. Like Jerry, I would prefer a clear definition of “sex.” And I would also like a clear definition of “gender” if the courts insist on using this ill-begotten word.
EdwardM / Hooray!
Next up: “The world is actually round.
Surprising. This is going to get the trans women’s panties in a bunch.
And their jockstraps.
O snap!
😀
I am always impressed when I read judgements of the UK Supreme Court, as they invariably hit points of logic that had never occurred to me. It’s a pity that the US Supreme Court has become so partisan and polarised that it has become positively tedious reading their judgements.
The decision here will be pounced on by the populists, which is a pity. I consider the judgement to be entirely correct, but I’m pleased that the Court stressed that trans rights are still protected, just not by changing biological definitions.
Well done JKR and FWS!
Note that Author has his latest Jesus & Mo cartoon today right up to date, featuring this ruling.
Well done England and Scotland!
Regarding “trans-this and trans-that”, I continue to urge pushback against GI Newspeak. As Orwell warned us, Newspeak intentionally makes it impossible to speak or think critically about the authoritarian ideology. The fact is there’s no such thing as a transperson, only a person who wants to call themself trans and wants to force others to call them trans. Just as there’s no such thing as a “cis woman”, only a woman. No such thing as “trans-rights”, only human rights. Engaging in the GI glossary is a trap that too many people fall into from which it is very difficult to generate a reasoned argument because the GI glossary denies reason.
Agree!
“GI”? Maybe Gender Insanity?
Hi Barbara. Thread #2 was too far indented to respond to you directly.
Since you ask,
Depends on the law.
If it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity and expression, which it is in many state civil-rights laws and in all provincial human-rights codes in Canada, the employer must punish employees who misgender a (trans-gendered) employee. If the employer does not enforce written HR policies that create a workplace free of discrimination, the TG employee has a case against the employer. To protect itself from such expensive legal trouble, the employer will use disciplinary measures, including dismissal, against the impolite female employee like yourself who does call Tammie a man and tells him to get his butt out of the ladies’ bathroom.
(As I have said elsewhere, this is the best reason to avoid hiring trans people. I would hate to have to fire you to placate them!)
So yes, the law does say you have to be polite toward members of protected groups or else your employer who permits impoliteness will get it in the neck. It may also be illegal for individuals to be impolite to members of protected groups in the course of their private activities away from their place of work. Amy Hamm’s “I ❤️ JK Rowling” ordeal in British Columbia is a case in point. She won’t go to jail — the kangaroo court that tried her has no power to imprison — but she will probably pay a heavy fine and may lose her nursing licence.
Thanks. Two reactions:
1. Thank Fortuna I am retired and can personally ignore such BS, even though the wider cultural rot is hard to ignore.
2. Canada, oh Canada. Is “toxic niceness” now a thing? But seriously, might you folks somehow follow the UK’s lead on this? Maybe a quiet riot?
I’m in for the quiet riot. Or a noisy letter-writing campaign.
Off topic, but Quiet Riot the rock band chose their name after mishearing Status Quo’s Rick Parfitt saying “Quite right!” in his southern English accent during an interview.
If a transperson is a transvestic or transsexual person, then there certainly are such persons as transpersons.
This welcome ruling will benefit even those not living in the UK. For example, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will no longer need a biologist to help her understand what a woman is in the law.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/blackburn-jackson-define-the-word-woman-00019543
I doubt she’s going to go along with the UK definition, though ultimately the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on this issue.
Brown Jackson will probably disagree with a biologist anyway. Because reality is transphobic.
I watched the judgement being handed down live this morning and was amazed at how comprehensively it clarified the issues. (I was half-expecting the Supreme Court to find that UK law in this area is a confusing mess and hand the issue back to parliament to sort out.)
The judges’ unanimous decision pretty much reflects the argued position of Sex Matters and indeed the judgement singles out the helpful contributions of their barrister, Ben Cooper KC.
A real vindication of everything that sex realist / gender critical women have been arguing for and a monumental victory for women’s rights throughout the UK. (Although the hearing was brought to appeal earlier decisions about 2018 legislation in Scotland, today’s decision is an interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, which applies in Scotland, England, and Wales and hence has much wider effect. Separate legislation applies in Northern Ireland, but I can’t see the Supreme Court’s ruling being ignored there.)
Links to the full written judgement and videos of today’s court session (and the earlier hearings) are all available here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042
I find Neil deGrasse Tyson’s stupidity about sex and gender. I used to admire his ability to popularize science without watering it down.
Tyson certainly understands the need for precise scientific definitions in astronomy. Hence the hullabaloo about demoting Pluto from its previous status as a “planet” to “dwarf planetoid”. Precise definitions are fine for icy dirtballs that orbit the sun, but biological sex is whatever, and who cares.
I know. But many popularizers of science wind up going off the rails in areas that are well outside of their domain. And there are many biologists (and even biological science societies) who are equally guilty.
One beats one’s chestfeeders over some of these science popularisers.
Now let’s see how the UK court decision plays out in academia.
“…And there are many BIOLOGISTS (and even biological science societies) who are equally guilty.”
Emphasis added (BIOLOGISTS): How on Earth could this have happened to the science departments in our universities? I think about this all the time, and I am still dumbfounded. Someone will have to get to the bottom of this question: how did the postmodern nonsense jump, so fast, from Gender Studies to Biological Sciences? Twenty years ago I said to a colleague that this would not happen.
The ruling doesn’t provide a definition, since the ruling is concerned with a fairly narrow matter: what would Parliament have intended by the terms “sex”, “woman”, “man” when they passed the 2010 Equality Act?
The ruling declares that, back in 2010, when passing that Act, Parliament would have intended those words to mean “biological sex”, etc, and, further, that they would have regarded the concept of a “biological woman”, etc, as sufficiently clear to everyone that further explanation was not needed.
(This is a rare case of a court doing what it actually should do, namely discerning what the legislative body meant and intended, rather than the court acting as activists, and “updating” the law to conform with the judges’ own ideas of what they would like it to be.)
Yes, but remember that people like Steve Novella or Neil deGrasse Tyson would argue that there are several or even many definitions of “biological sex”. So the definition of “biological woman” is not clear even to these scientists.
It is strange that Tyson never asked Pluto about how it self identifies before pushing a logical definition of “planet” that excludes Pluto. He has no brook for the idea that there are many definitions of planet and we can be arbitrary in our choice of definition,
‘In all the stuff I was able to read this morning, I was unable to find the definition of a “biological woman”, save that it refers to one’s natal sex, though they don’t mention gametes.’
The judgement argues that legislation should be “construed according to the ordinary meaning of the words used”. Lawyers might want to dance around like angels on the head of a pin, but in reality everyone knows what a man or a woman is whatever they might pretend to the contrary.
Edited to add: Oops, I forgot to refresh the page before commenting and see that Coel had already posted along similar lines.
Well, I’d prefer to see it spelled out. As J.B.S. noted in what he called “Aunt Jobiska’s Theorem”, about things that can be misconstrued, “It’s a fact the whole world knows.”
Lawyer Michael Foran, Lecturer in Public Law at the University of Glasgow, has now addressed this in his latest blog post citing the case of Corbett v Corbett, also cited in the Supreme Court’s judgement, in which the judge ruled that sex was to be legally defined by chromosomal, gonadal, and genital factors:
https://knowingius.org/p/sex-has-always-meant-biological-sex
Misogynist bigot Hemant Mehta has already tweeted crying about Richard Dawkins, who was, apparently, “already taking a victory lap”. I wonder if he’ll write a substack where numerous commentators issue death threats, while he frantically deletes polite disagreement?
Will have to check out Free(From)ThoughtBlogs now…
Our Supreme Court looks like it is moving in a similar direction (at least regard the transing of children, TN case) though the final verdict isn’t in yet.
Interestingly in Australia an important court (the High Court I think…) held the opposite.
(See the “Giggle” case).
Great news from the UK though. 🙂
D.A.
NYC
Although in another Australian court case last week the judge came to a very sensible decision about the upbringing of a gender-confused child: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/health/medical/judge-lashes-child-gendermedicine-experts-in-blow-for-clinic/news-story/99255ab7dc3461bd5522f2a25ff32dec
This is very welcome news indeed.
I am sorry this had to happen, but it had to happen. It had to happen given the abuses that were sanctioned where trans-women were declared to be women in all areas. Plus the various strong sanctions against the brave people who were speaking out against those abuses and for core evolved biology.
As for trans-men in men’s sports, there has been very little objection to that. But I wonder why. They would naturally masculinize themselves with testosterone, but that is an anabolic steroid. Who’s to say that they could not pretty much ‘roid themselves out for their sport? I am not sure if this is a real problem or not, but one has to wonder.
Two reasons, Mark. Female athletes playing against men don’t grate against us “normies” as cheaters even if they are taking testosterone, because they haven’t a hope in Hell of beating all the men and winning. Sure they’ll beat a lot of men in the bottom one or two thirds but the men at the top can be pretty sure they’ll take home the medals and win the scholarships as God intended. A man who placed 300th in a mixed-field marathon would be thought unmanly if he groused about losing 299th place to a woman with a beard.
As an aside, note that testosterone is a prohibited substance in sport unless the athlete has been granted a Therapeutic Use Exemption for it based on legitimate medical grounds outlined in the TUE protocol. The World Anti-Doping Association now encourages the Anti-Doping Organizations of the various sporting bodies to develop Therapeutic Use Exemptions for testosterone in athletes who are competing as men if the Use is for gender affirmation. WADA counsels that the use has to be medically supervised meticulously with T levels maintained within the normal range for men. I don’t know if normal male levels of T are enough to “roid out” a woman, physically or mentally. I also don’t know if any sport ADO actually has written a TEU for testosterone in “transmale” athletes and I don’t know if any female athlete has been given one. This latter would be a private matter but it would be rather obvious if you looked at the whole field instead of just at the podium where the cameras are.
Pharmaceutical T is a doping issue, not an sex/gender eligibility issue. A sport could choose to prohibit women (on or off T) from competing in men’s events. Governors of men’s rugby and boxing wouldn’t be worried about the women cheating as much as the risk that one of them could be killed.
There is a deeper reason why I don’t think “transmen” competing in men’s sport will be a real problem, though. Consider the costs of the strategy. A man who wants to compete in a women’s sport just has to register himself as a woman (maybe get his birth certificate changed to “F”) and presto! he can rocket from also-ran obscurity to an almost guaranteed gold, certainly to a podium place. Now that most women’s sports don’t bother with measuring T levels for eligibility, he doesn’t even have to take estrogen or anti-androgen drugs, but if he is TG and wants to take estrogen, he’ll still probably win. Success is assured and cost-free other than parental disappointment, therefore highly incentivized.
Now consider a driven female athlete who’s been competing since age five, consistently in top three at every competition. A sure thing for a scholarship or the Olympic team (if a guy doesn’t come along and snuff her.) Imagine the cost to her for an attempt to be competitive as a man. For sure she would have to start taking T at the onset of puberty (which should be illegal anyway.) She would forego the near-certainty of being a world-beater as a woman. Yet as a man she’s just not going to make the top 100 no matter how much T she takes and so wrecks her body for nothing. (Remember that elite women at the top of their game are beaten by hundreds of male high-school students.) And if she’s not trans-gender, she wouldn’t want to do this anyway. High cost, no pay-off. (And, by the way, if she weren’t trans-gender her sport wouldn’t issue her a TEU for testosterone in the first place.)
So let’s look at the women who are trans-gender and want to take testosterone. There are very few athletes in that group, because elite athletes are rare everywhere. A TG athlete who is gifted will do far better competing as the woman she is, rather than as the man she will never be. The rest, well, for the ones who aren’t too fat to be athletes T will make them look more like Chase Strangio than Mike Phelps, or even like Katie Ledecky (who of course isn’t trans.)
I think I need a lawyer!
I keep on seeing comparisons between the US and UK Supreme Courts and I don’t think that they are the same creatures. The US court has a much broader interpretive role not just of statutes but also of fundamental constitutional issues and can create judicial legislation. Although there might be caveats with the Human Rights Act on the whole the UK court is ultimately subordinate to parliament. The reason I mention this is because I wouldn’t put it past certain turds in the Labour Party to start militating for a change in the legal definition of a woman that comports with their delusions.(This is worrying given their stonking majority.)
I’m not a lawyer or a constitutional expert so feel free to weigh in if I’m off track.
I think the difference is that the SCOTUS is entitled to interpret these kinds of issue against the Constitution and the Constitution is nigh on impossible to change via Congress. An example would be the egregious decision by the SC to overturn 50 years of constitutional protection that was Roe vs Wade. The UK, being a Parliamentary democracy without a formal written Constitution, means that the SC is largely required to ensure only that the legislature and executive has acted within the laws it has set. In reality this gives the Court massive latitude as it has to assess not only the fact of the Act of Parliament but also its legal legitimacy. There’s also human rights legislation to take into account but, nevertheless, this results in the UK Court having much less chance of reaching partisan political decisions. The reality is that if bad judges are appointed, as is certainly true in the present US Court, then poor decisions can result.
Thank you, I always found the US Supreme Court a bit difficult in my comparative politics 101.
Brilliant news for once.
I’ve already seen several trans rights advocates in the UK invoke the spector of Donald Trump in response — “we’re turning into Trump America, this is what Trump wants, etc” — even though Trump hasn’t been connected to any of this. It brings home how successful activists in the US have been in framing the issue of transgender identities as a battle between the liberal political left and the conservative political right. The belief that women are female is usually treated as religious dogma imposing itself on others.
How refreshing it was, instead, to read the Supreme Court summary describing For Women Scotland as “a feminist voluntary organisation that campaigns to strengthen women’s rights” — and the news media following along. I’m pretty sure that American reporters would describe the group as “an anti-trans far right organization that attacks civil rights and abortion.”
Just finished reading Helen Joyce’s book: Trans. Enlightening!!!!!!
Indeed it is, and not comfortable reading for some of us, as we learn how trans-fol-de-rol was sneaked into Federal policy during the Obama administration simply by some changes in wording. The medical institutional capture was also very creepy. I’m having difficult conversations with some of my pals.
Helen Joyce and Michael Foran (lecturer of law at the University of Glasgow) on Spectator TV after the ruling (20 mins):
This was posted on Mumsnet – a great watch!
Common sense ruling. Basically said that while certain groups may have common interests they can also have interests at odds with other groups and discrimination in these areas can be legitimate. Transwomen can confine online discussions about being a transwoman to only transwomen. Same with women wanting a biological female rape counselor and etc. Common sense.
And they basically said the definition of a biological woman is common sense and take a hike with the nit-picking.
One point brought up regarding the implications of this ruling:
“Final point. Once the Supreme Court has ruled, its decision states what the law has always been, not what it should be from date of judgment onwards.
This has implications for cases concluded, cases currently being fought, employers’ trans access policies & lots more.”
https://x.com/QcWynter/status/1912440455318458598
I am happier about this return to sanity than I can say. (And as the daughter of a Scotsman, I’ve found Scotland’s rabid embrace of gender identity woo particularly disheartening. Once upon a time we had our own Enlightenment!)
PCC(E), I think you meant to write “…from competing against biological females, here:
“I’ve found Scotland’s rabid embrace of gender identity woo particularly disheartening”.
Indeed! Scottish men have been proudly wearing kilts without anyone suggesting that they are “gender non-conforming”, yet alone that it makes them women!
Scotland needed to be reined in. And great bonus is a precise clarification of ‘what is a woman?’ has been decided by the UK supreme court.
I’m so pleased about this. Of course there are the usual howls of “bigot” all over the place, which is pretty infuriating given that most of these howls come from women.
EdwardM / Hooray!
Next up: “The world is actually round.
Kathlee Stock, “How women won the gender wars It took brains, guts and heart”
https://unherd.com/2025/04/how-women-won-the-gender-wars/
The UK decision is less unexpected than you might think. Keir Starmer (the PM and head of the Labor party) has defined a woman as a ‘adult human female’. The UK also produced the Cass report (that Keir Starmer embraced). Scotland tried to impose gender self-id. The SNP lost in no small measure because of the Ilsa Bryson case. The converse is that the movie ‘Adult Human Female’ has been blocked (twice) by TRAs. The movie was eventually shown.
It took Keir Starmer a long time to arrive at a sensible position – he refused to defend his (then) Labour parliamentary colleague Rosie Duffield when she said that only women have a cervix, saying that this was “not right”: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58698406