Hopefully, the court's landmark judgment will have ripple effects in Canada, as well
Author of the article:
By Amy Hamm
Published Apr 23, 2025
Last updated 8hours ago
4 minute read
Join the conversation
Article content
The U.K. Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week that a woman is defined by her biological sex — not by her “gender,” her “gender identity,” the type of clothing she wears or whether she puts makeup on, but solely by existing as a female human being. Thus it has always been.
THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS
Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.
- Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.
- Unlimited online access to National Post.
- National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
- Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
- Support local journalism.
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES
Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.
- Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.
- Unlimited online access to National Post.
- National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
- Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
- Support local journalism.
REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
- Access articles from across Canada with one account.
- Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
- Enjoy additional articles per month.
- Get email updates from your favourite authors.
THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
- Access articles from across Canada with one account
- Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments
- Enjoy additional articles per month
- Get email updates from your favourite authors
Sign In or Create an Account
or
View more offers
Article content
Article content
The judgment is so reasonable and rational, I could — and did — cry.
Article content
“The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups of our society at the expense of another. It is not,” said Lord Hodge, one of the five ruling justices, as he sombrely read a summary of the decision to a packed courtroom.
Article content
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
The case began when a charity group, For Women Scotland, challenged Scottish legislation that sought to ensure that public boards be comprised of 50 per cent women, but which included transwomen in the definition of a “woman.” After losing in the highest court of Scotland, the group appealed and finally won — this time at the highest court in the United Kingdom.
Article content
Platformed
This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Interested in more newsletters? Browse here.
Article content
The Supreme Court’s answer on what constitutes a woman is clear. Just as clear is what does not: identifying oneself as a woman does not literally transform a person into one, regardless of whether that person has a government gender certificate.
Article content
As such, transwomen in the U.K. can be legally excluded from women’s sex-segregated spaces and services, including prisons, rape shelters and women’s sports. Following the ruling, a spokesperson for the U.K. government told the BBC that it would bring “clarity and confidence for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges and sports clubs,” and that, “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”
Article content
Lord Hodge was correct when he reminded those in the court that the decision is not about women “defeating” transwomen. Instead, the ruling is about asserting a clear boundary around women’s sex-based rights — which we fought for and won for good reason: to exclude males in situations where their presence creates unfairness or is detrimental to our safety or dignity.
Article content
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
This ruling will not serve to exclude trans people from society. For instance, transmen will continue to be welcome and included in female spaces, and vice versa for transwomen. Yet, despite Hodge’s measured reassurances, the backlash from gender activists, in the U.K. and elsewhere, was disturbingly abusive and misogynistic.
Article content
Read More
- John Carpay: Putting female inmates in harm's way
- Amy Hamm: I spoke the truth about women's rights. That isn't professional misconduct
Advertisement embed-more-topic
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Almost immediately, protesters took to the streets of London. Among the thousands in the crowd, some held signs that read: “Bring Back Witch Burning … JK” (referring to author and women’s rights advocate J.K. Rowling); “The Only Good TERF Is A _ _ _ _ TERF,” accompanied by a hangman’s platform and noose (TERF, or “trans-exclusionary radical feminist,” is a slur for women who are critical of gender ideology); and “You’re Just Jealous That My D–ck’s Bigger Than Your Boyfriend’s And My T-ts Are Bigger Than Yours.”
Article content
Several of the protesters’ messages would, in Canada, likely rise to the level of criminal hate speech. All of this because women fought, and won, to have the definition of what it means to be a woman protected in law.
Article content
All words would be rendered meaningless without their strict, exclusionary definitions.Allowing any or all people to identify as female renders the word “woman” absolutely meaningless. That cannot stand. “Woman” means something — as it must, if we are to be safeguarded in law. We all know what it means, what it has always meant and what it will always mean. It’s unfortunate that we live in a time when a Supreme Court judgment is required to state the obvious.
Advertisement 2
Advertisement
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
It’s even more unfortunate that Canada hasn’t even gotten this far. In this country, those who assert the same fact laid bare by the U.K. ruling, that “woman” is a biological category, are subjected to institutionalized harassment, abuse, lawfare, job loss and false accusations of discriminatory speech. (All of which happened to me.) But, mark my words: Canada will follow in the footsteps of the U.K. There is no other way.
Article content
U.K. Supreme Court decisions, while not binding on Canadian courts, sometimes persuade our judges in making their own. This ruling could help secure a win for Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights, a non-profit I helped found, which recently launched a Charter challenge against the federal government, seeking to remove males from female prisons.
Article content
While gender activists have enjoyed sinking their hooks into the misguided sympathies of Canadian leaders for over a decade, those of us who are critical of gender ideology have had ours sunk deep into reality and truth. Sympathies change, but reality and truth, just like the meaning of “woman,” do not.
Article content
We are going to win back the definition of “woman” in Canada.
Article content
National Post
Article content
Article content
Article content
This advertisement has not loaded yet.
