When is a Woman A Woman?
Reflecting on the April 2025 Supreme Court ruling, and society’s move towards ‘Homo Deus’

What the judges say

The terms ‘woman’, ‘man’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) refer to biological sex, the Supreme Court has judged.

The UK’s highest court ruled in favour of For Women Scotland’s appeal against Scottish Government guidance that allows men who identify as female to take women-only positions on company boards.

In 2023, Scotland’s Inner House of the Court of Session backed the Scottish Government’s position, which asserts that the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 can class men who have Gender Recognition Certificates (GRC) as women, without contradicting other legislation.

Creating new law?

We might wonder why the Scottish legal system sought to create new law and new norms in this way. Of course Scotland has its own legal system, being an awkward amalgam of Common Law and Roman Law. Under Roman Law systems (sometimes called 'Civil Law Systems') judges effectively have greater scope to create law and ignore case law, unlike Common Law judges, who must place great weight on previous judgments. Activist judges are empowered by Roman Law systems, and restrained by Common Law systems. (That is one reason why Britain never fitted happily into the European Union legal environment, and why even today it fails to understand the direction of travel of the ECHR).

It is notable that in the past decade, English Law has taken on more and more Roman Law characteristics, as judges challenge the separation of powers between the Law and the Executive.

Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way.

(In England, the separation of powers, a core principle of governance, divides state authority into three branches: the legislature (Parliament), the executive (the Crown and Government), and the judiciary (courts). While Parliament makes laws and the executive implements them, the judiciary interprets and applies the law, ensuring its upholding. This separation is not absolute, and checks and balances exist, such as Parliament’s ability to scrutinize the executive and the judiciary’s reliance on Parliament for its powers).

Interpreting ‘sex’

Explaining their judgment, Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler – supported by Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones – said: “Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way.”

The Justices also identified additional provisions “that require a biological interpretation of ‘sex’ in order to function coherently”, including single-sex spaces and services, communal accommodation and single-sex higher education institutions.

They continued: “Similar confusion and impracticability arise in the operation of provisions relating to single sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces.”

Biology or certificates?

Consequently, they stated, the Court “rejects the suggestion of the Inner House that ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ can refer to biological sex in some sections of the EA 2010, and certificated sex in others. The meaning of ‘sex’ and ‘woman’ must be consistent throughout the EA 2010.”

Sex can’t be changed but the law had the capacity to make a mess of anything ...

In the Judgment, they stated: “The meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex. Any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate.”

Following a summary of their reasoning, the Supreme Court Justices concluded 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”.

A mess of everything

Responding to the ruling, Susan Smith, Co-Director of For Women Scotland, said: “Today, the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, women are protected by their biological sex – that sex is real ... Sex can’t be changed but the law had the capacity to make a mess of anything. We’re just really glad common sense prevailed.”

Maya Forstater, Chief Executive of Sex Matters, added: “Everyone is going to have to pay attention to this. This is from the highest court in the land. It’s saying sex in the Equality Act is biological sex. Self ID is dead.”

Former Olympian Sharron Davies MBE reacted: “Single sex spaces, have become today, clarified in law, as a biological single sex space, including; sport, changing rooms, rape crisis centres & prisons. It was always madness to suggest a £6 piece of paper changed a biological reality”.

It is apparent that mankind is seeking to become demi-god, or to use a recent term, Homo Deus

Clarity

Baroness Falkner of Margravine, Chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, also welcomed the ruling: “Today the Supreme Court ruled that a gender recognition certificate does not change a person’s legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.

“We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations”.

The UK Government stated that the ruling brings “clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs”.

End of the story?

It is probable that the various LGBTIQ++ lobby groups will try to overturn or test these rulings in varying ways.

It is apparent that mankind (or at least the Western ‘Progressive’ parts of mankind) is seeking to become demi-god, or to use a recent term, Homo Deus (from Latin ‘Homo’ meaning man or human and ‘Deus’ meaning God). The idea is that humans are evolving beyond their current biological limitations, granting them the ability to control their own bodies, minds, and even the environment, effectively making them godlike.

This, of course, creates a society in Mankind’s image; one in which humanity is worshipped instead of Almighty God. Such notion is to be utterly rejected by all who know the Lord.

The war against God’s plans and purposes for humanity will continue, but we can thankful at least that this one battle, over the definition of a woman, has been won. 

Read also my book, ‘Last Days and End Times – Making the Connection’.