My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean
Update 576. Magdalen Berns Special. #BeMorePorcupine.
All the news streaming in to me is about the magnificent judgment!! I haven’t had to rely on my wonderful two readers who always feed me great suggested pieces!! So here is another piece centring on the judgment and a pause on the film series.
‘Bonnie’ in the song My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean is Bonnie Prince Charlie, exiled heir to the throne of Scotland, England and Ireland, who fled to the Isle of Skye after the Battle of Culloden Moor in 1746.
Following the magnificent victory of For Women Scotland this week, the Bonnie we would like to bring back, at least in our memories, is the wonderful Magdalen Berns, one of the co-founders of For Women Scotland.
So this is for Magdalen.
Now that I am retired and (obviously) without a salary any longer, it would greatly assist my hard work in putting together these updates if you could consider becoming a paid subscriber or else buy me a coffee. Thanks to my paid subscribers and to those who donate via buy me a coffee. Thanks to all subscribers for your support. There are always good discussions in the comments so please get involved in those.
The For Women Scotland Judgment
There is comprehensive analysis of the judgment from lawyer, Michael Foran on his substack Knowing Ius. I am pleased to see that this is not behind a paywall so hopefully you can all access it and I recommend it. I just provide an introductory excerpt below.
Though I join with the ongoing campaign to repeal the Gender Recognition Act and to remove ‘gender reassignment’ as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act ( see my recent one off piece There Are No Witches https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/there-are-no-witches ), this does not diminish from how monumental this Supreme Court judgment is.
Sex has always meant biological sex
The Supreme Court delivers a seismic ruling on equality law
Apr 19, 2025
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has delivered judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. In a testament to simplicity on the far side of complexity, the Court has cast a piercing light of clarity through a body of law characterised by extraordinary misunderstanding and misinformation.
The headline takeaway: references to sex in the Equality Act are references to biological sex; references to men in the Equality Act are references to biological males; references to women in the Equality Act are references to biological females.
The Supreme Court has ruled that our anti-discrimination law has always understood sex to be biologically determined, from as far back at 1970 when the first equal pay protections for women were introduced.
Nothing has changed that. The introduction of anti-discrimination protections for transgender people did not change that; the enactment of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 did not change that; and the consolidation of our anti-discrimination law into the Equality Act 2010 did not change that. Woman has always meant biological woman. Man has always meant biological man. Sex has always meant biological sex.
That’s the simplicity part. The complexity through which this simplicity traversed was 55 years of anti-discrimination law, complex arguments of statutory interpretation, and a knot of legal arguments presented by the Scottish Government to defend its claim that sex in the Equality Act 2010 is, properly understood, determined by certificates, not biology.
In this post, I hope to unpack the reasoning of the Supreme Court in this case. As with much of my writing on this site, I will try to make this as accessible as possible to non-lawyers, given the extensive public interest in issues relating to sex and gender identity. Some of this is going to be complex law, however, so please feel free to comment below with any questions you have after reading this. I will try to do another post in the future responding to those questions.
Biological Sex
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the terms “sex”, “man”, and “woman” take on their default meaning within our law, tied to biological sex, or whether they take on a certificated meaning determined by state-issued documentation. Those were the only two options. It was never an option for our law to be based on self-identification.
The Court began its judgment by noting that the expression “biological sex” is used widely to describe the sex of a person at birth. The Court is not taking on a special or technical meaning of the expression but is rather relying on the ordinary meaning of the expression, as it would do as the default in statutory interpretation generally.
In response to this judgment, some academic commentators have critiqued the Supreme Court for not providing a definition of the term “biological sex”. In my view, this criticism is misguided as there is a well established and well defined meaning for biological sex in our law, based on biological facts.
In the seminal case of Corbett v Corbett [1971] p 83, cited by the Supreme Court at [54], the High Court concluded that as far as the common law is concerned, sex is biological, immutable, and fixed at birth at the latest. Determination of what sex an individual is, where it is contested, a matter of fact to be determined based on the evidence presented, as it was in Corbett. In that case, a male-to-female transgender person argued that medical intervention including genital surgery changes someone’s sex. The High Court rejected this contention, concluding that biological sex can be determined by evidence relating to chromosomes, gonads, and external genitalia. It rejected the contention that hormone levels or psychological factors including what we would now call a gender identity were relevant for determining an individual’s sex.
Obviously, in the vast majority of cases chromosomes, gonads, and external genitalia align as unequivocal evidence of an individual being of either the male sex or the female sex. Even more obviously, the overwhelming majority of transgender people are unequivocally male or female. Having a DSD is not a precondition for having a transgender identity and the law is clear about how to deal with those who do have DSDs: it regards determination of their sex as a matter of evidence to be proven in court where it is contested.
The decision in Corbett has been approved on several occasions over the past five decades. It is unequivocal at this point that our law has a clear and established meaning for the expression “biological sex”, one which the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland felt no need to re-hash for the benefit of academics or campaigners unfamiliar with the last 50 years of law in this area. As the Supreme Court stated at [171]:
‘The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men. Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, 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. Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group.’
Some may disagree with the fact that our law is both based on biological sex and informed by a detailed consideration of the factors which may (and may not) be relied on as evidence of biological sex. That disagreement should not be presented in the guise of criticism of the Court for not defining its terms. It didn’t need to because the meaning of the expression “biological sex” is well established in our law and correlates to the ordinary meaning that all adults and most children can understand.
The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded [209] that:
‘…sex has its biological meaning throughout this legislation: “woman” always and only means a biological female of any age in section 212(1). It follows that a biological male of any age cannot fall within this definition; and “woman” does not mean or sometimes mean or include a male of any age who holds a GRC or exclude a female of any age who holds a GRC. To reach any other conclusion would turn the foundational definition of sex on its head and diminish the protection available to individuals and groups against discrimination on the grounds of sex.’
The full piece is here:
https://knowingius.org/p/sex-has-always-meant-biological-sex
Excellent interview on Spiked with Andrew Doyle.
Katrina Biggs on her substack, A B’Old Woman reports, in the wake of the judgment, on the New Zealand Herald describing Kellie-Jay Keen as a ‘pro-women activist’. There’s a first time for everything!! 😄
Posie Parker a “pro-women activist” – NZ Herald opinion piece. How times have changed.
It took a Supreme Court decision in the UK to allow the words "pro-woman activist" to be written in NZ.
Apr 19, 2025
I believe this might be the first time a mainstream media publication in New Zealand has allowed the words “pro-women activist” to be written in relation to Posie Parker – aka Kellie-Kay Keen.
An opinion piece by journo Fran O’Sullivan titled “Why UK Supreme Court decision matters for women’s rights” appeared in the NZ Herald on Saturday 19 April. Not only is it remarkable the NZ Herald featured an opinion which didn’t scream “anti-trans” about the UK Supreme Court decision ruling, which stated the words ‘women’ and ‘men’ mean biological sex in their Equality Act – although that piece may yet come – it allowed the line which contained “British pro-women activist Posie Parker” to remain.
“Pro-women activist” - knock me down with a feather!
A quick internet search will show that the NZ Herald hasn’t been shy about promoting and venerating all things TQ+, disguised under the ubiquitous LGBTQ+ label. Neither has it been shy about decrying anything and anyone who doesn’t venerate trans ideology as ‘anti trans’.
I’m told that Fran O’Sullivan has never bought into trans ideology, but I suspect like other journos she’s been stifled by her bosses and pro-trans colleagues in expressing that. When I say “stifled”, what I really mean is that in my entire life in the workforce, I have never encountered the kind of sustained viciousness, venting, and threats in the workplace, like we’ve seen and heard of in the name of trans ideology, for anything else. Why it has been allowed, and even encouraged is neither normal nor productive, despite words to the contrary from TQ+ snake oil salespeople.
The full piece is here:
Parkrun are now under pressure following the judgment as reported by Feminist Legal Clinic.
Parkrun urged to scrap ‘unfair’ rule which allows trans people to compete in women’s runs
Parkrun has been urged to change its “unfair” rule to let transgender people to compete in women’s runs.
Women’s rights groups are demanding that the popular 5km community event scrap rules which allow transgender women to compete in female categories.
Critics have argued that the current self-ID policy has allowed transgender women to “smash” female records in Parkrun events.
The controversy has heightened after it was reported that one transgender woman has finished first in approximately 60 Parkrun events – even beating a former British Olympian.
Former Olympic marathon runner Mara Yamaguchi highlighted how transgender athlete Siân Longthorpe “smashed to smithereens” a women’s Parkrun record in the 45-49 age group category.
Records also show that Claire Hallissey, who is a marathon runner who competed for Team GB at the London Olympics, finished behind a transgender athlete at a Parkrun.
Feminist activists were reportedly “lost for words” in 2023 when it emerged that a Parkrun women’s record was still held by a transgender champion fell runner who had been jailed.
Lauren Jeska, a former British fell-running champion, was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2017 for repeatedly stabbing UK Athletics’ head of human resources, Ralph Knibbs.
The attack occurred after a dispute erupted over Jeska’s eligibility to compete as a female athlete despite being born male.
Yamaguchi told The Times that, given that women are defined by their biological sex, it was “unfair against women and girls” for Parkrun to allow males in the female category.
Source: Parkrun urged to scrap ‘unfair’ rule which allows trans people to compete in women’s runs
Peta Credlin rejoices on Sky News Australia - pause there: shout out to Sky News Australia for being one of the only major channels to stand out against this madness.
Esther Krakue on Talk TV tells it as it is - go, girl!!!
Great report on GB News including Connie Shaw, Sharron Davies and Ash Regan:
Ripx4nutmeg on the Glinner Update focuses particularly on the misreporting that has gone on:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/nutmegs-week-c11
Let Women Speak, in the light of the judgment, will be focusing on major organisations who need to start a bit of reverse ferreting, starting with the police followed by the NHS followed by nursing and midwifery.
Some of our amazing events coming up.
These focus on public services that have betrayed women.
We've decided to target the state-funded services we should be able to trust. We have a series of Let Women Speak events hosted in places where we guarantee we will be heard. The NHS, the GMC, and the police have all failed in their duty to protect women. They have allowed ideology to override evidence, sidelined sex-based safeguarding, and punished those who speak out. Instead of upholding our rights and safety, these institutions have too often enabled harm, silenced dissent, and ignored the voices of women. It's time they listened.
Please join us.
A reminder that Let Women Speak is entirely grassroots—we rely on merch sales to keep going. We don’t have big donors or state funding, so every purchase helps us stay independent, visible, and strong. Thank you for your support!
Let Women Speak
Police edition
24th May 2025
It’s crucial to speak out against police bias driven by transgender ideology, which puts women at risk and targets us unfairly for defending our rights. Impartial policing must be restored.
Let Women Speak
GMC edition
4th June 2025
We must challenge the NHS and GMC’s ideological bias, which endangers women’s care and punishes professionals who uphold biological reality. Healthcare must prioritise evidence, not ideology.
Let Women Speak
Nursing and Midwifery edition
2nd July 2025
The nursing and midwifery professions must be free from ideological bias. Women's needs are being sidelined, and professionals face pressure for speaking truthfully. Care should be based on reality, not activism.
Mana Wāhine Kōrero will be doing a video on Easter Monday to celebrate the FWS victory. Looking forward to that 😊
Face-Off: MP Casey Costello & UK Supreme Court vs Midwifery Council NZ
Two weeks to back your winner!
Apr 20, 2025
The last week has been a joyous one for women all over the West, with the UK Supreme Court finally ruling that a woman is an adult human female and a man is a man, and never the twain can swap.
Here at home, New Zealand First Member Casey Costello directed Health New Zealand to call us women instead of ‘pregnant people’. How long can the Midwifery Council hold out?! We don’t know but we know they’re not going to just roll over.
To celebrate, Di Landy, Katrina Biggs, Deb Hayes and Sarah Henderson will be doing a video update on everything Midwifery Council on Easter Monday 21st April, which we will post everywhere - and we’ll go over how to submit your feedback to the Council, tell them what you think, and that you want Midwifery to be for women!
Submissions close on the 5th of May - we’ve got two weeks, and now we’ve got a ruling from overseas we can cite and a directive from Casey Costello to back us up - let’s make it count here too wāhine.
See you Monday!
MWK.
#NeverSurrender
#Only WāhineAre Māmā
#MotherIsNotADirtyWord
Thanks to my mate Fingers for sending me this cartoon from The Times. Fingers has now decided that, in light of the Supreme Court judgment, everything is sorted out now despite me trying to explain to him that it is not going to be quite that simple 😂
Endpieces
I’m joining in
From Dusty
From Liz
From Tenaciously
#BeMorePorcupine
#EndGenderAffirmingCare
#AdultHumanFemale
#LetWomenSpeak
#FightForFreeSpeech
#NoMenInWomensSport
#LiveNotByLies
#WitchesRUs
#NHSTheGameIsUp
A fitting tribute to Magdalen, Dusty. Thanks for the report on last Wednesday’s win. As we’ve come to expect, the police are looking for whoever damaged the statues, not for the men who assaulted women during Saturday’s march. #BeMorePorcupine #KeirStarmerIsAScaredyCat #JKRIsOurQueen
Thanks for giving credit to Magdalen Berns.
Love the Easter Endpiece. 😂