The UK Supreme Court ruled last week that women exist. The Court clarified that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, either male or female.
The shocking ruling by two female justices (Rose and Simler) and one man (Hodge), concluded that men do not become women by putting on dresses and getting a faux government document certifying that they’re female, now.
These three UK justices confirmed “that sex has its biological meaning.” Yep, common sense folks have known this for millennia.
In an earth shattering move, these judges laid out their shocking conclusion that women are not men and men are not women. Ever mindful of the insane times we live in, they made the announcement with velvet gloves to avoid shocking the delicate sensibilities of the woke who believe otherwise.
The ruling politely noted that the distressingly misnamed Gender Recognition Act (GRC) of 2004 which provided men with a ‘certificate’ stating that they are really women… would be of a small comfort to women confronted with a man in a changing room or a rape counselling group.
“While many women in a female-only changing room or on a women-only hospital ward or in a rape counselling group might reasonably object to the presence of biological males, it is difficult to see how the reasonableness of such an objection could be founded on possession or lack of a certificate.”
A piece of paper cannot make a man into a woman. Not even a mountain of paper could do that.
The movements of pieces of paper do not change biology. All they certify is that government authorities expect everyone to pretend that a man is a woman.
The notion that we are expected to ignore the obvious sex of a man or woman because ideological fashion or governments tell us that a man is a woman, is even more naked than the naked emperor fable.
A woman confronted with a naked man might, the poor ladies point out, not be aware that he possesses a certificate which makes him a woman.
And if six foot tall men with beards who possess a certificate saying that they are women can use the ladies shower or show up to a rape counselling session, then what’s the basis for discriminating against six-foot-tall bearded men who forgot their ‘woman card’ at home?
The ruling therefore continues that “a service-provider is required to provide services previously limited to women also to trans women with a GRC even if they present as biological men” If you’re going to let Bob in, who has a GRC, what’s the reason for not letting in Steve, who doesn’t have a GRC, but looks just like Bob does?
Are women really supposed to be more comfortable with Bob because he has a piece of paper that he doesn’t even have to display on demand, to prove he’s a ‘woman’? Not in a sane world or in sane company.
Sex is not a routine charade in which GRC certificates and other bureaucratic paraphernalia determine reality. If the single sex accommodations provided for by British law actually exist, then they have to be limited to men or women or the whole thing becomes a farce. And that’s what the transgender movement has done by insisting that sex is a state of mind.
The Scottish authorities tried to pretend that a man is a woman by virtue of a certificate while the UK Supreme Court countered that “this would undermine the very considerations of privacy and decency between the sexes both in the availability of communal sleeping accommodation and in the use of sanitary facilities.”
The Biden Administration tried the same thing only to have their house of cards knocked down by Donald Trump who said bravely, there are only two genders, biological men and biological women. According to the leftist media, this executive order caused untold grief and suffering among the transgender drag race RuPaul wannabees and drag queen story hour violators of small children, and that’s a price I’m willing to pay.
In the UK, the demands for single sex privacy are not based on government certificates and can’t be fixed with them. A government certified woman is still a man and anyone who thinks otherwise is positively insane. Sex is assigned by God, not by government certificates.
The silly Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States Supreme Court was unable to define what is a woman, pathetically replying, “I am not a biologist.” Her far better qualified British counterparts appear to have overcome her handicap with biology and have defined what a woman is.
In the era of a hundred genders blooming in soy latte joints and the dark lobes of tormented university professors, the UK Supreme Court heretically insisted that “the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.” Ahoy, mates. We salute you.
Ketanji could learn from the court’s lesson in elementary biology and sanity. But she probably won’t.
In the throes of cultural insanity in the year 2025, the UK Supreme Court is forced to point out that “the meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’…is biological and not certificated sex.”
A century ago the notion of a government issuing certificates to men that they are really women on demand would have been imagined only as the grossest satire, but now a court ruling affirming reality is a vital and courageous statement that defies the dictates of the insane woke establishment.
As a famous Briton named George once wrote, “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” The distinction between men and women has become one of those obvious things that must be restated.
There is something simple and beautiful about the pure logic of the words which the court stated “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.” And thus it should have been always.
If beauty is truth and truth is beauty, then this is a beautiful ruling. It’s also beautiful to the women who fought long and hard to be recognized as members of a sex whose identity is innate, not bestowed on them by the ideological biases of a government bureaucracy. In the final analysis, what is ultimately at stake in the debate over the definition of a woman is the divine authority of our Creator and the individual humanity He bestows upon us.
By reaffirming the existence of women, a man and two ladies of entirely determinable sex have also reaffirmed creation distinctions.
****
“He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created” (Genesis 5:2).
