Woman's physical form found.
Verdict On April 16, a groundbreaking decision was made by the Supreme Court, concluding a tumultuous 7-year court battle between the feminist group For Women Scotland and the Scottish government. The final court session in this case took place in November 2024. The feminist activists, including acclaimed author J.K. Rowling, advocated for women to exclusively claim the title based on their biological origins. On the other hand, the Scottish government staunchly supported the rights of individuals to self-identify their gender without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.
Contending in the Supreme Court, For Women Scotland pointed out that the "Equality Act," passed by the British Parliament in 2010, already deems transgender individuals as a "victimized" group and provides them additional preferences in the workforce, education, and other areas. They asserted that this was inherently unfair to women who remain steadfast in their biological sex, as transgender individuals would gain advantages not accessible to biological females. The claimants maintained that men who transition into another gender are robbing a portion of gender quotas from genuine women.
However, in 2019, shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the UK Supreme Court lost its power to overturn laws passed by the British Parliament, including the Equality Act of 2010, as a result of an initiative by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Despite this, the court retained the authority to overturn legislative acts of the UK's constituent countries, which it exercised in this case, as well as in the 2022 ruling on the independence referendum in Scotland.
The 12-judge Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Equality Act's provisions regarding certain benefits (such as maternity and pregnancy) can only apply to natural, not acquired, gender. The court also stated that any laws protecting women solely based on birth cannot extend to "naturalized" women.
The court's decision means that gender-neutral public spaces, such as toilets, baths, changing rooms, prison cells, hospital wards, etc., can no longer exist in the UK.
Following the Supreme Court's acceptance of For Women Scotland's case at the end of 2022, the Scottish Parliament, then governed by a coalition of the National Party NSP and the "greens," tried to pass the local "Gender Recognition" bill, which would have simplified the procedure for changing one's gender in this part of the United Kingdom. These attempts to blur the biological purity of the female gender have now been halted.
The roots of this Scottish law concerning the equality of real vs. "naturalized" women can be traced back to Nicola Sturgeon's leadership of the Scottish government from 2014 to 2023. Her National Party, in a rare coalition with the "greens," pressured for changes in the law regarding gender rights, which was passed by the UK in 2010 while the nation was still a member of the EU.
According to the Equality Act, any person age 18 and over can alter their legal gender, as long as they reside in that gender for the subsequent two years without reversing and undergo a medical examination. Sturgeon, however, rashly chose to hasten the threshold for intersex transitions, lowering the age of consent to 16, the period of residence to 2 months, and abolishing the medical examination. Essentially, the Scottish law ushered in a declaratory order for gender transitions.
This move was met with resistance from the majority of Scots, known for their conservative leanings. For Sturgeon, this was crucial as part of her broader strategy to push for a second referendum on leaving the British crown's jurisdiction and rejoining the EU as an independent nation. Coincidentally, this stance was backed by nearly half of Scotland's residents - in the first referendum in 2014, 45% of those who voted supported independence, and in 2016, more than 48% opposed leaving the EU.
Read more news in our Telegram channel @expert_mag
#Women#UnitedKingdom#Courts#Law#TraditionalValues
- The Supreme Court's decision in April 2025, concluding a seven-year court battle, upheld that maternity and pregnancy benefits can only apply to individuals of natural, not acquired, gender, greatly affecting transgender individuals and women's health policies.
- The court's ruling implications extended to various sectors, including health-and-wellness and women's health, potentially disrupting policies and legislation related to general news.
- For Women Scotland argued that transgender individuals could gain unfair advantages over biological females due to quotas allocated to self-identified women, a key point in their advocacy against such policies.
- The Scottish Parliament's attempt to pass the Gender Recognition bill aimed at simplifying gender transition processes was thwarted, following the court's ruling against gender-neutral public spaces.
- The roots of the contested Scottish law regarding gender rights can be traced back to Nicola Sturgeon's tenure as the leader of the Scottish government before 2023, instigating policy and legislative changes that accelerated the process for intersex transitions.
- As a result, this Supreme Court verdict highlights a significant shift in science, politics, and societal norms regarding transgender issues, spurring discussions and changes in the realms of health, policy, and news.
