Why the Supreme Court’s trans ruling is bound to be sabotaged
SEAN WALSH
Why, may that not be the skull of a lawyer? Where be his quiddities now, his quillities, his cases, his tenures and his tricks? – Hamlet
IT’S HARD to say which view is the more jarring: that a man can become a woman because a piece of paper says he can, or that he can’t because a court says he can’t. Perhaps out of respect for the ‘non-binary’ zeitgeist we should go with both/and rather than either/or and conclude that each is rubbish in its own way.
The Supreme Court’s ruling that the category ‘women’ as used by the Equality Act (2010) refers necessarily to biological sex has been welcomed by many. To some extent this is fair. The application of the 2010 Act has been retroactively complicated by later legislation in ways its architects could not have predicted. Of particular relevance is the legislative mischief-making of the Scottish Parliament and its 2018 Gender Representation on Public Boards Act, the proximate cause of the latest pushback against the lunacy of ‘gender self-identification’.
You must have some sympathy for the judges who were tasked with the holistic interpretation of a sequence of statutes, instituted at a time when the ambient culture was nearly sane. It can’t be easy to do so from the perspective of the bizarre Bosch universe that has come to enclose all of us since then.
That said, those who celebrate that the curtain might be coming down on the theatre of the absurd are being too optimistic. This was, if I may mix my metaphors, an exercise in legal housekeeping – the lawyers have tidied the desk and if the result is pleasing on the eye now, it’s only a matter of (very little) time before the vested interests of progressive activism try to mess it up again.
We’ve been here before after all, when we were naive enough to think that the results of the independence referendum of 2016 would be implemented, and that we would be unchained from the asphyxiating structures of the European Union. What happened instead? The Establishment activated its sleeper agents in all areas of the state, visible and hidden, and launched its campaign of tireless recalcitrance. Successfully, many would argue.
It should never be the business of jurisprudence to announce the conclusions of philosophy more generally. ‘The law’, like Net Zero, Adolescence and ‘generative’ artificial intelligence, has become one of those irritatingly vogueish objects of required veneration. Lawyers are neither biologists nor metaphysicians; their excellence in matters relating to ‘quiddities and tenures’ usually comes at the expense of common sense.
The Supreme Court was not concerned with the truth – that biological sex is immutable and determinant – as much as it was with ensuring that there is a consistency of interpretation of the category ‘woman’ as it appears in the original 2010 Act and in subsequent legislation and codes of practice.
For many judges consistencyis an end in itself, but it’s quite possible to be wrong in logically impeccable ways. The truth about sex is obvious to anyone willing to open the Book of Genesis or, if that’s not their thing, their own eyes. Biological sex is constitutive of, and not contingently attached to, what it is to be male or female.
For too long women have been browbeaten into talking as if their biology is the accidental physiology on which the real essence of womanhood supervenes; and that this essence cannot be described in the vernacular of the chromosome or the language of DNA sequencing, but in more esoteric, if not quite so scientifically specific, terms.
This is meretricious metaphysics, shallow thinking dressed up in clever language. A human life is the unfolding of a process, a movement moment to moment from the potential to the actual, incrementally revealed in the physics, chemistry and entropy of the human body. A person cannot identify as male or female – it is the biology which is the precondition of personhood and self-awareness in the first place. The elevation of gender over biological sex is an inversion of the natural order of things, and the ridiculous end point of the existentialist claim that we can will ourselves to be what we would like to be. Not even God can do that.
We can put the point another way. There is a deep intimacy between biology and identity, and this implies that it is a category error to suggest that I can be ‘trapped in the wrong body’. You can no more be trapped in your own body than a building can be trapped in its own architecture.
Transgender ideology inserts a new dualism into its conception of the human person. It distinguishes not between body and soul but between body and gender and dismisses the former as being of little moral significance. In the season of Easter, it is right to point out that this is a deeply non-Christian view. ‘We preach Christ crucified’ wrote St Paul; and the world is re-enchanted by Our Lord’s bodily resurrection.
I’ll say something positive. This ruling will do good things when it comes to women’s sport, and this should be celebrated, as sport is often real life in condensed form. Transgender activism has been particularly malign here. This is partly to do with health and safety – as Fiona McAnena of the organisation Sex Matterssays, sport is a competition between bodies, not genders. We must also, however, be mindful of the greatest gift of competitive sport: that it teaches us how to lose graciously. It is wrong that the intrusion of men into women’s athletics has robbed the latter of medals. But it is just as wrong when a sport is rigged so that you can’t genuinely lose.
The Supreme Court is an unnecessary relic of the Blair times, of politics-by-law and addiction to constitutional vandalism. Its role in the national life should be that of go-to object of ridicule, a jurisprudential ‘cones hotline’ perhaps. It would be regrettable if this accidental moment of clarity generated any lasting affection for it on the part of a disproportionately grateful nation.
That said, in a time when the pleasures of civilised people (drinking, smoking, giving offence to those most eager to take it etc) make us liable either for arrest or bankruptcy, schadenfreude is pretty much all we have left. The woke antagonists and their Establishment groupies have no straightforwardly good, immediate move. Having counted on the progressive instincts of the judiciary, they were not expecting to be burned.
In response to the court’s decision, Peter Hitchens has remarked that all revolutions pause to take breath, so enjoy the squealing while you can. Expect in the coming weeks systemic and organised non-compliance with the ruling, particularly in the public sector (which is quickly becoming the only sector) and moreparticularly in the ever-aggrieved NHS.
A court that shouldn’t exist has told us something we already knew. Affronted by this affirmation of common sense, the ministerial transgender hawks are now war-gaming their pushback. And the professional agitators are on the streets already, defacing the tributes to women’semancipation and screaming the anthems of this new cult of hateful misogyny.
This article (Why the Supreme Court’s trans ruling is bound to be sabotaged) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Sean Walsh
See Related Article Below
Trans ‘Allyship’ Didn’t Work and Neither Will Violent Threats
The most vulnerable men on earth in all of history. pic.twitter.com/SqzVH0OkSl
— Gay Not Queer (@Gaynotqueer1) April 20, 2025
This backlash from the genderists is not surprising. For two decades an irrational ideology that undermines elementary science, bulldozes through language, truth, and logic, and tramples over the rights of non-believers has been allowed increasingly to hold sway across our institutions and shared public life. Adherents of the ideology have been led to believe that they will get their way. Conjure up a new gender identity – it duly appears in worksheets for schoolchildren. Dream up a new demand for workplaces – next year you will see it in the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index.
Besides, gender ideology was supposed to be well bulwarked against set-backs. Violent threats were not meant to be needed, because more subtle ones, even nicely sugar-coated, were in place.
Firstly, we are all familiar with the notion of ‘transphobia’. The threat of disciplinary action at work, a ‘non-crime hate incident’ recorded against your name by the police, the fear of being called a transphobe on social media: these were all supposed to silence the would-be questioners about gender ideology.
But even this wasn’t the main defence against the exposure of the rotten heart of gender ideology. Candy-coated compliance was expected to suffice, the velvet glove covering the iron fist was not meant to come off. We were all supposed to ‘Be Kind’.
Following the Supreme Court judgment last week, Andrew Walton, Lloyds’s Chief Corporate Affairs Director, told LGBT staff: “Please know that we cherish and celebrate you.” Cherish and celebrate work colleagues? That sounds unrealistic and exhausting. On display here is the language of ‘allyship’.
Last week, Justine Roberts, the founder of Mumsnet, revealed that her business had been blacklisted by Barclays because it hosts debate on gender ideology and in the past has called for the definition of ‘a woman’ to be clarified in equality legislation. Queried about this by the BBC, Barclays declined to comment. In 2018 Barclays was named one of Stonewall’s Top Global Employers for the sixth consecutive year. A Barclays video about ‘allyship’ is therefore a perfect showcase of this approach.
In the Barclays allyship video, Sionice (she/her) explains the rules – listen to catch the tone.
Look at this video from @BarclaysUK. With respect to gender ideology, you need to ‘wise up, stand up, & show up’. You need to be ‘visible in your allyship’. Like display your pronouns. At what point does this become a sort of intimidation into corporate groupthink? Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/2pPh39f54H
— Caroline ffiske (@carolinefff) June 29, 2021
Sionice explains about transgenderism: “Where people go wrong they think they need to understand it. You don’t!” (Subtext – don’t ask questions.)
On allyship: “To be a better ally there are three things you need to do. You need to Wise up, Stand up, and Show up.”
On wising up: “Wising up is about educating yourself and not expecting the LGBTQ+ community to educate you.”
On standing up: “Standing up is about standing up for the community as if you’re part of the community.”
On showing up: “Showing up is about being visible in your allyship. It’s about saying ‘I’m an ally’, adding your pronouns to your email signatures and social media sites. And observing days like Trans Day of Remembrance.”
Overall: “You don’t need to be an expert. But by helping yourself and educating yourself you’re helping others. You are saying ‘I am an ally and I think about diversity and inclusion’. And that is the first step to brilliant allyship.”
Stonewall also provides lessons in allyship. It’s Workplace Equality Index has multiple questions asking employers for evidence of it. The idea for ‘visible signals’ has spawned a plethora of badge schemes, rainbow staircases, rainbow crossings, rainbow lanyards, and rainbow cupcakes…
The instruction to have ‘visible signals’ is probably what led Barclays to promote transgenderism to users of its cashpoints.
Allyship was supposed to work. We could show up, cherish each other and celebrate bringing our whole selves to work. We could use whichever loo we want and relegate the dignity and privacy of the two sexes to the history books. We would note the irreversible damage done to vulnerable young people by experimental gender medicine as an acceptable side product of our self-actualisation.
Well, allyship didn’t work. When we wised up we came back to the fact that sex is real and matters. When we stood up we spotted other people starting to have questions too. When we showed up we decided to head to a Let Women Speak meeting in Hyde Park to hear from Posie Parker.
The accusations of transphobia ultimately didn’t work either. Live not by lies!
So now too, the violent threats won’t work. Sex matters and so does the truth. Gender ideology is over – but we need to keep the receipts, expose the history and learn the lessons. “By educating yourself you are helping others” – thanks for the tip, Barclays.
Caroline Ffiske is a Director of Conservatives for Women. Find her on X.
Stop Press: The Met Police is reviewing death threats to women displayed by trans rights activists at a protest. The Telegraph has more.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply