Since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers in April 2025, there has been an avalanche of misinformation about the what the ruling says, what is mentions, and what it doesn’t mention.
If we accept that case/statute law and, certainly, all common law, until very recently was predicated on biological sex, and that the UKSC ruling is by way of a clarification of existing law, rather than any new ruling, where do we go, legally, if the 'trans' lobby refuses to acknowledge the law as it is, and as was clarified? Is it down to women to fight every breaching of boundaries in a court of law? Most of us alive today would never see an end to it.
This is where the whole game becomes unplayable from the point of view of females because these men - and it is almost always the men - have been allowed to push the existing legal boundaries and conventions to breaking point without any real backlash, except the court cases which are becoming wearisome and lengthy.
I think it is time that we stopped talking of these men as if they are really mentally deranged in the sense that they do actually believe in their deepest self that they are women, when studies done (not many recently, granted, but new, neutral and unbiased scientific research would seem to me to be absolutely essential now to try to explain what this actually is) by the likes of Ray Blanchard, J. Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence (a 'transwoman'), who whilst acknowledging the sexual roots of cross-dressing as fetishistic or paraphiliac, still speak of these men as if they should be accepted by females without question.
The previous studies done have all shown that these men are aware that they are not women, that they are hooked on the notion of passing as women, not for any real and deep identification with women and with women's lives, but because they are sexually motivated to do so, such a hold has the addiction on them.
Some are fetishists and some are paraphiliacs, the latter going to great lengths sometimes to alter their bodies because, then, they are able to be abused and able themselves, in ways, mainly sexually, that only women and girls can be abused. Masses of pornography on the ways in which men derive sexual pleasure from 'womanhood' are known to be out there and accessed on a huge scale. One sex psychologist I read stated that he had been attacked for telling a client that he was a paraphiliac and not any kind of woman.
For the law, now, to deny or ignore the obvious sexual basis to so much, if not all, of this stuff, as far as adult males are concerned, is verging on the criminal in relation to female rights of dignity, privacy and safety. What these men, and those who support them, appear to want is to force females of all ages, coerce them legally, into non consenting sexual prop roles - a form of sexual totalitarianism and a misogyny so deep-rooted that it is almost beyond belief.
The law cannot, in all conscience, condone that, surely? I'm not saying it does in the court cases, but all the instruments of public governance - the government itself, the police, the legal service, local authorities, unions, the NHS, the civil service, et al - appear to be a law unto themselves; they act with impunity by breaking the law for which an ordinary citizen would be arrested; and are not punished for flouting the law.
Females, on the other hand, are punished by process, for not bending the knee to this utter sexual brutality and coercion in the name of these men being 'poor victims' of some biological disorder when it is so often a sexual deviance exacerbated by extreme addiction to porn. When are we going to start calling a spade a shovel IN LAW? Calling these men out for what they actually are. If we do not, IN LAW, we are acquiescing in the subordination of females before said law.
Not sure what’s happening. Just started typing a happy response and it disappeared! Thank you so much for such a clear, evidence based piece of writing. I got so frustrated when students at 3rd year were still not going to the original source for their arguments. This is the problem with this issue. Too many secondary and tertiary references or Chinese whispers as it was known! It really helped me to understand it very simply because i know there’ve been areas where I’ve been a bit confused - too tired to concentrate these days, it’s really nice to have someone clever make it simple. Again, thank you and keep up the good work 😊
Are there any other examples of the UK Government showing such determined reluctance to respect a Supreme Court ruling on interpretation of legislation, or is this unprecedented?
The specifics of this case are quite bad enough but the very fact that the Government seems intent on blocking compliance with a Supreme Court ruling is extremely worrying.
I agree. Michael has lain out the details of the legislation, but I'm not sure that the law itself can explain what is happening, only that the UKSC ruling is plain and out to be implemented across the board.
That it isn't is not just worrying for female rights, but is also worrying for the future of the law, the only mechanism we have that stands between use all and a totalitarian state.
I think, and I hope my previous comment shows this, that we have been far too squeamish in both civil society and in law ion not calling out this stuff for what it is. That is what has changed: our willingness to not call a spade a shovel when it so patently is.
Even when a case is taken to court or to a tribunal, great care is taken never to even suggest by the merest hint, that the behaviour of these men is entirely sexual in origin. We pussyfoot around the truth, and, in so doing, we have condemned young women and children to bodily mutilation and totally unnecessary hormone treatments. Very young boys, too, are being castrated in the name of this sexual deviancy.
It is this that really angers me: the complete unwillingness of all public and legal bodies to express the objective truth about this latest manifestation of societal harm. Women's groups should no longer fight a case just on breaching of their legal and based-in-convention boundaries alone, but also on years of study done into this subject that has shown to be rooted in sex - the doing rather than the being - and which been admitted by 'transwomen' themselves. Anne Lawrence, a 'transwoman' wrote copiously about cross-dressing and paraphilia/fetish, and even the UK's most famous 'transwoman', Debbie Hayton, has spoken about the sexual origins of paraphilia, in particular.
Few challenges to the widely-accepted view that these are men who were 'born in the wrong body' and have female brains has been made, despite all the evidence to the contrary. This, I would suggest, is why the UKSC ruling has fallen on deaf ears - that and the fact that the 'trans' lobby is powerful and well-financed through public and private monies while women are on their own.
My solution would be that these men must produce, in court, if they contest a case, evidence to show that their brains are different, and female, that their DNA profile does not show XY chromosomes, that they are, and always have been, willing to use third spaces or unisex spaces and that they have never accessed 'sissy porn' hubs. After all, they are the ones who are contesting the legal norm of 'biological sex', not the women. Women re going through hoops to show that they have a good case, and all fairness to the law, it has recorded in their favour, a good number of times. However, too many of these ruling have been ignored.
Any governing body, national, regional or local, and any public service of any kind, should also be required to submit evidence to parliament that men who claim to be 'trans' identified and, therefore, breach female boundaries with impunity and without female consent, are not encouraged by legislation, or a failure to enact legislation, to do so, meaning that all laws to be passed should have impact assessments done on probable effects on women and girls and children, safety impact assessments done, etc. so that ill-advised and, frankly, dangerous, laws are not passed without due care and attention and a proper duty of care to all involved.
"However the myth is that the previous misinformation about self-identification being the default in our law was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court".
But it was wasn't it? If not explicitly by default?
If we accept that case/statute law and, certainly, all common law, until very recently was predicated on biological sex, and that the UKSC ruling is by way of a clarification of existing law, rather than any new ruling, where do we go, legally, if the 'trans' lobby refuses to acknowledge the law as it is, and as was clarified? Is it down to women to fight every breaching of boundaries in a court of law? Most of us alive today would never see an end to it.
This is where the whole game becomes unplayable from the point of view of females because these men - and it is almost always the men - have been allowed to push the existing legal boundaries and conventions to breaking point without any real backlash, except the court cases which are becoming wearisome and lengthy.
I think it is time that we stopped talking of these men as if they are really mentally deranged in the sense that they do actually believe in their deepest self that they are women, when studies done (not many recently, granted, but new, neutral and unbiased scientific research would seem to me to be absolutely essential now to try to explain what this actually is) by the likes of Ray Blanchard, J. Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence (a 'transwoman'), who whilst acknowledging the sexual roots of cross-dressing as fetishistic or paraphiliac, still speak of these men as if they should be accepted by females without question.
The previous studies done have all shown that these men are aware that they are not women, that they are hooked on the notion of passing as women, not for any real and deep identification with women and with women's lives, but because they are sexually motivated to do so, such a hold has the addiction on them.
Some are fetishists and some are paraphiliacs, the latter going to great lengths sometimes to alter their bodies because, then, they are able to be abused and able themselves, in ways, mainly sexually, that only women and girls can be abused. Masses of pornography on the ways in which men derive sexual pleasure from 'womanhood' are known to be out there and accessed on a huge scale. One sex psychologist I read stated that he had been attacked for telling a client that he was a paraphiliac and not any kind of woman.
For the law, now, to deny or ignore the obvious sexual basis to so much, if not all, of this stuff, as far as adult males are concerned, is verging on the criminal in relation to female rights of dignity, privacy and safety. What these men, and those who support them, appear to want is to force females of all ages, coerce them legally, into non consenting sexual prop roles - a form of sexual totalitarianism and a misogyny so deep-rooted that it is almost beyond belief.
The law cannot, in all conscience, condone that, surely? I'm not saying it does in the court cases, but all the instruments of public governance - the government itself, the police, the legal service, local authorities, unions, the NHS, the civil service, et al - appear to be a law unto themselves; they act with impunity by breaking the law for which an ordinary citizen would be arrested; and are not punished for flouting the law.
Females, on the other hand, are punished by process, for not bending the knee to this utter sexual brutality and coercion in the name of these men being 'poor victims' of some biological disorder when it is so often a sexual deviance exacerbated by extreme addiction to porn. When are we going to start calling a spade a shovel IN LAW? Calling these men out for what they actually are. If we do not, IN LAW, we are acquiescing in the subordination of females before said law.
Not sure what’s happening. Just started typing a happy response and it disappeared! Thank you so much for such a clear, evidence based piece of writing. I got so frustrated when students at 3rd year were still not going to the original source for their arguments. This is the problem with this issue. Too many secondary and tertiary references or Chinese whispers as it was known! It really helped me to understand it very simply because i know there’ve been areas where I’ve been a bit confused - too tired to concentrate these days, it’s really nice to have someone clever make it simple. Again, thank you and keep up the good work 😊
Thank you, that's really helpful!
Are there any other examples of the UK Government showing such determined reluctance to respect a Supreme Court ruling on interpretation of legislation, or is this unprecedented?
The specifics of this case are quite bad enough but the very fact that the Government seems intent on blocking compliance with a Supreme Court ruling is extremely worrying.
I agree. Michael has lain out the details of the legislation, but I'm not sure that the law itself can explain what is happening, only that the UKSC ruling is plain and out to be implemented across the board.
That it isn't is not just worrying for female rights, but is also worrying for the future of the law, the only mechanism we have that stands between use all and a totalitarian state.
I think, and I hope my previous comment shows this, that we have been far too squeamish in both civil society and in law ion not calling out this stuff for what it is. That is what has changed: our willingness to not call a spade a shovel when it so patently is.
Even when a case is taken to court or to a tribunal, great care is taken never to even suggest by the merest hint, that the behaviour of these men is entirely sexual in origin. We pussyfoot around the truth, and, in so doing, we have condemned young women and children to bodily mutilation and totally unnecessary hormone treatments. Very young boys, too, are being castrated in the name of this sexual deviancy.
It is this that really angers me: the complete unwillingness of all public and legal bodies to express the objective truth about this latest manifestation of societal harm. Women's groups should no longer fight a case just on breaching of their legal and based-in-convention boundaries alone, but also on years of study done into this subject that has shown to be rooted in sex - the doing rather than the being - and which been admitted by 'transwomen' themselves. Anne Lawrence, a 'transwoman' wrote copiously about cross-dressing and paraphilia/fetish, and even the UK's most famous 'transwoman', Debbie Hayton, has spoken about the sexual origins of paraphilia, in particular.
Few challenges to the widely-accepted view that these are men who were 'born in the wrong body' and have female brains has been made, despite all the evidence to the contrary. This, I would suggest, is why the UKSC ruling has fallen on deaf ears - that and the fact that the 'trans' lobby is powerful and well-financed through public and private monies while women are on their own.
My solution would be that these men must produce, in court, if they contest a case, evidence to show that their brains are different, and female, that their DNA profile does not show XY chromosomes, that they are, and always have been, willing to use third spaces or unisex spaces and that they have never accessed 'sissy porn' hubs. After all, they are the ones who are contesting the legal norm of 'biological sex', not the women. Women re going through hoops to show that they have a good case, and all fairness to the law, it has recorded in their favour, a good number of times. However, too many of these ruling have been ignored.
Any governing body, national, regional or local, and any public service of any kind, should also be required to submit evidence to parliament that men who claim to be 'trans' identified and, therefore, breach female boundaries with impunity and without female consent, are not encouraged by legislation, or a failure to enact legislation, to do so, meaning that all laws to be passed should have impact assessments done on probable effects on women and girls and children, safety impact assessments done, etc. so that ill-advised and, frankly, dangerous, laws are not passed without due care and attention and a proper duty of care to all involved.
Beautifully put 🙏
"However the myth is that the previous misinformation about self-identification being the default in our law was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court".
But it was wasn't it? If not explicitly by default?