Local advocates for women’s rights have cheered on the United Kingdom’s supreme court’s ruling on the definition of woman.
The UK supreme court has declared the legal definition of a woman is based on her biological sex, not gender.
Director of Public Affairs and Engagement for the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney Monica Doumit has welcomed the decision, which comes just months after Australia said gender overruled sex.
“Just eight months ago, Federal Court of Australia judge Robert Bromwich ruled that sex is not confined to being a biological concept and could be changed,” she told The Catholic Weekly.
“The willingness of the UK Supreme Court to confirm the inseparability of a person’s sex and their biology is common sense, and a sign that the tide is starting to turn.
“I hope this significant judgment will have flow on effects here in Australia.”
Women’s Forum CEO Rachael Wong said the UK had “made decisive steps away from the gender madness” with the decision.
The five supreme court judges ruled unanimously that men who hold gender recognition certificates saying they are female do not fit the legal definition.
The ruling means single-sex services such as shelters, hospital wards, sports, and others can lawfully deny the admittance of trans-identified men.
The case was brought before the supreme court by gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is financially backed by bestselling author JK Rowling.
The court heard the case after two Scottish courts rejected the argument the definition in the Equality Act 2010 of woman referred only to biological sex.
The court stated in its 88-page judgement while the word “biological” did not appear in the definitions in the Equality Act “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman.”
The document said those providing single-sex accommodations such as medical care, hostels, or changing rooms would face “practical difficulties” if the term did not only mean biological sex.
“Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.”
The ramifications for what this ruling could mean for self-identification laws and what it will mean for women’s spaces which currently contain trans-identified males is yet to be seen.