Flower Of Scotland
Update 573. #BeMorePorcupine.
My wife and I and two of our Terfy friends have had a lovely celebratory afternoon in Birmingham but now my wife and I are back home in the Black Country and I am back at my post.
Hopefully you have all caught up with my report from earlier!
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/shock-news-a-woman-is-a-woman
It seems to me that the Sandie Peggie case and the Darlington Nurses case must now win!! Thoughts?
Well done also to those who intervened in support of For Women Scotland: Sex Matters; The Lesbian Project; LGB Alliance.
Sex Matters have provided an excellent summary and you will see that, in due course, they will provide a template letter that you can send to your MP - this is because the next stage is to make sure this judgment is implemented on the ground.
We are delighted that the Supreme Court has accepted the arguments of For Women Scotland and rejected the position of the Scottish Government. The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not to paperwork.
What this means
Men who claim to be women do NOT count as women in the Equality Act, even if they have a gender-recognition certificate (GRC).
Where services and spaces are provided for women only, men do not have the right to demand entry, even if those men identify as women and have a piece of paper saying that they are women.
This outcome is the common-sense one, and the only one that protects everyone’s human rights.
Now the government, officials and regulators need to act to make sure that everyone understands the law. Women have been lied to and let down for too long.
Find out more about the implications of this judgment – and look out for a briefing on our campaign page later today.
What next?
Now we need to ensure that the law is understood and implemented. This judgment from the highest court in the land must spell the end of policies that allow men to access women’s spaces and services based on their claim of identifying as women, and which ignore the needs and interests of actual women.
Politicians on all sides have failed in their duty to stand up for women. They said the law was clear. They said they supported single-sex spaces. But they refused to act when women were bullied for talking about the reality of the two sexes, and men were told they could enter women’s spaces at will.
The brave women of FWS should not have had to take this case. They had to step up because politicians and officials failed to stand up for everyone’s rights. This cannot be allowed to continue. It’s time that our elected representatives and civil servants do the job we pay them to do. We will hold them to account to make sure that happens.
What can you do?
In the coming days, we will publish a summary of the judgment, along with tools to enable you to write to your MP demanding action.
Please look out for another email from Sex Matters in the next few days.
It’s a team effort – thank you!
Sex Matters is proud to have supported For Women Scotland in their years-long quest to establish that sex in the Equality Act really means sex: male and female. FWS brought its fight all the way to the Supreme Court in order to safeguard the human rights of everyone, but especially of women.
It was an honour to be accepted as intervenors in the Supreme Court, and to have been invited to make oral as well as written submissions. We are glad to have been able to help the court reach a judgment in this historic case.
As always, huge thanks to our supporters, without whom none of our work would be possible.
Feminist Legal Clinic reports:
Supreme Court backs ‘biological’ definition of woman
By FLC Admin on April 16, 2025
Judges at the UK Supreme Court have unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.
It marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle which could have major implications for how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.
The court sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against the Scottish government arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to people that are born female.
Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, and stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people.
The Scottish government argued in court that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.
The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain.
Lord Hodge said the central question was how the words "woman" and "sex" are defined in the legislation.
He told the court: "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.
Judges at the Supreme Court in London were asked to rule on what that law means by "sex" - whether it means biological sex, or legal, "certificated" sex as defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The Scottish government argued the 2004 legislation was clear that obtaining a GRC amounts to a change of sex "for all purposes".
For Women Scotland argued for a "common sense" interpretation of the words man and woman, telling the court that sex is an "immutable biological state".
Speaking outside the Supreme Court following the ruling, For Women Scotland co-founder Susan Smith said: "Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex.
"Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the Supreme Court for this ruling."
Source: Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman
https://feministlegal.org/supreme-court-backs-biological-definition-of-woman-bbc/
Really excellent piece from Kellie-Jay on behalf of The Party of Women.
A victory for women
Kellie-Jay Keen
A Victory for Women – But One That Should Never Have Been Necessary
Today’s Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers is nothing short of a landmark moment — a long-overdue win for common sense, legal clarity, and the protection of women’s rights.
I want to begin by applauding the tireless efforts of Marion Calder, Susan Smith, and Trina Budge. Their steadfast leadership and unshakable commitment to defending women’s spaces have finally borne fruit in the highest court in the land. They have stood firm against immense political and social pressure, and today’s result is a testament to their courage and clarity. It’s an amazing win — not just for them, but for every woman in Scotland and the wider UK.
That said, this fight should never have been necessary. That it reached the Supreme Court at all speaks volumes about the erosion of sex-based rights and the confused legislative landscape created by the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA).
The Ruling: A Step Forward
The Supreme Court has ruled that the meaning of “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not to anyone who merely identifies as such — even with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This means that men who obtain a GRC and claim a female identity cannot legally be counted as women for the purposes of laws that protect female representation and sex-based rights.
Let’s be honest — we all knew what the words “sex” and “woman” mean. The Equality Act 2010 was drafted with clarity and purpose. The context is crystal clear: when it refers to “sex,” it is speaking about biological reality, not self-declared identities. That this had to be litigated at all is deeply concerning.
The Real Problem: The GRA Itself
While this ruling restores the biological meaning of “woman” in equality law, it does not fix the root of the problem. The Gender Recognition Act is the mechanism that allows men to obtain legal status as women.
As long as the GRA remains on the books, men can still legally “become” women in many other contexts — marriage, pensions, documentation — even if the Equality Act carves out specific exceptions. This ruling may contain the spillover into equality protections, but the GRA is still the legislative loophole through which male entitlement is legitimised.
Repealing the GRA is the only mechanism that will truly close the door on men accessing women’s spaces under the guise of identity. That is the final frontier in protecting the integrity of female-only spaces, services, and safeguards.
A Judiciary Under the Microscope
We must also pause to ask how this case was lost twice before — in both the Outer House and the Inner House of the Court of Session. The fact that it took a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court to finally affirm something so self-evident raises serious concerns about the ideological capture within our judiciary.
When our courts are unable — or unwilling — to uphold the plain meaning of words in law, we are no longer simply debating policy. We are fighting for the very integrity of legal language and objective reasoning. This case is a warning sign: we must look closely at who is interpreting our laws and on what basis.
A Final Note on “Reassurance”
One final observation: I was disheartened — though sadly not surprised — to see so many women today rushing to reassure the public that “trans people are still protected.” Let’s call this what it is: men larping as women. We have every right to name the reality of what’s happening here. We shouldn’t be expected to temper our relief and hard-won progress with hand-wringing affirmations that men's feelings are still valid.
Today is a victory. It was earned, it was right, and it must be followed through with legislative courage.
Repeal the GRA.
Another excellent piece from Baroness Claire Fox on the Academy of Ideas substack.
Three cheers for For Women Scotland
Biological reality is back! After today’s fantastic victory for women's rights in the UK Supreme Court, the onus is on us to make it more than just a legalistic piece of paper.
Apr 16, 2025
It feels ridiculous that, as a society, we have to thank the Supreme Court for re-establishing biological reality. We all know what a woman is, but stating the bleeding obvious has in recent years been enough to get many good people cancelled, their reputations dragged through the mud as they are routinely demonised as bigots. And for women, single-sex spaces have been compromised by the presence of men. All because unclear laws, a cowardly political class and an array of institutions flaunting their ‘progressive’ trans-inclusive policies have allowed the presence of piece of paper – a gender-recognition certificate – to be enough to overthrow biology and common sense.
So, when Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, read – in a deadpan, serious tone – the words ‘Read fairly, references to sex in this provision can only mean biological sex. People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate’, I fist-pumped and cheered. (You can read the full judgement and case summary in For Women Scotland Ltd vs The Scottish Ministers here.)
Without being churlish, and while delighted that today biological reality is confirmed in UK law, I resent needing to thank the judiciary for this victory. Every word of the unanimous, unequivocal court ruling shouldn’t have needed saying. Sex is binary and immutable. A woman is an adult human female and would have been even if the court had stated otherwise. You shouldn’t need a landmark ruling to know and be safe to state that men cannot be lesbians; that is true no matter what any court rules. And while today I may thank the lord for sensible Supreme Court justices, it shouldn’t undermine another reality. Women’s rights – all rights – need to be fought for, from bottom up. And that is what has happened here.
When it comes to thanks, those really should be reserved for the courageous grassroots campaign For Women Scotland, started by Susan Smith, Marion Calder and Trina Budge. (Watch Susan and Marion in action at the Battle of Ideas festival below.) As eloquently explained by Susan Dalgety earlier today, they have ‘sacrificed the last eight years of their lives – and often their families’ – to prove, once and for all, that sex is immutable, that being female is not a choice, or an identity, but a biological fact’. But I mainly know these valiant and gutsy women as tireless campaigners, not legal scholars, part of a huge and growing network of organisations and individuals who have forced this issue onto the agenda.
We at the Academy of Ideas have tried to help where we can, but I have looked on in awe at the solidarity, organisational prowess, passion and dedication of these campaigners, who have today shown the world that activism matters; you can change the public mood and even the law if you have the guts to fight back.
But oh, such madness that so much time, energy, money and emotion has been expended on this elite, top-down, hijacking of reality and our rights over the past decade.
Those campaigners now need time to celebrate and lap up the plaudits and no doubt catch up on lost sleep. But we now must all help by ensuring we use this Supreme Court judgment to take on all those institutions, local councils, schools, universities, NHS trusts, sports bodies, service providers, professional associations, trade unions and news media who will need schooling on what this must mean for their discriminatory, anti-women policies. If someone is a man/male, however they identify, having a gender-recognition certificate doesn't entitle that person to be in a woman's single-sex spaces.
We need to strip out the poison of divisive identity ideology from public and private bodies, and the way it has been used to chill free speech. But we also should avoid using the law as a stick to beat opponents or a crutch to avoid that hard work of winning arguments. We need to carry on persuading, engage in public debate and talk, especially to younger generations who – let’s be honest – our generation has socialised into believing that there is something progressive about the assertion that anyone is ‘born in the wrong body’.
We should use this legal decision as a useful tool, an ally, in exposing the smoke and mirrors of gender ideology, and it’s regressive consequences. Call it a new phase of the culture wars. At least we have a warning shot that should force governments – both national and devolved – to get off that bloody identitarian fence, and stop sneering at those courageous culture warriors who are really the change-makers.
As yet, Labour will need some serious pressure to see through today’s victory and make sure it is more than just a legalistic piece of paper. Harriet Harman’s immediate post on X bodes badly. Harman is supposed to be Labour’s UK special envoy for women and girls, yet writes: ‘Single sex spaces for women are important & can exclude trans women but only where necessary’. She seems to be interpreting the law to suit her own political prejudices and implying women's spaces are still not safe in the UK government’s hands.
But that’s tomorrow’s fight, and we at the Academy of Ideas will be there all the way. For now, join me in a celebratory drink to our Scottish ‘sheroes’ and all those thousands of women who made today such a glorious day.
Good pieces from Wings Over Scotland ( thanks, Petal)
https://wingsoverscotland.com/
Here is Kellie-Jay again 😃
Here’s a message from our friend, Ricky Gervais:
https://x.com/rickygervais/status/1912523880087904739
Ok, that’s enough for the time being, Terven. As ever, all thoughts gratefully received.
Endpieces are adjourned until the next update.
#BeMorePorcupine
#AWomanIsAWoman
#ForWomenScotland
Thanks Dusty, great round up of a great day.
I agree with KJK, the GRA is the problem and should be abolished and I agree with her that it’s sickening to hear so many women grovelling to appease ‘trans people’.
Claire Fox is right that we should not have had to thank the Supreme Court. Cowardly politicians should have been doing their jobs.
The decision should help Sandie Peggie 🤞
Onwards with renewed vigour 😁