Susan Smith (L) and Marion Calder, directors of ‘For Women Scotland’ cheer as they leave the Supreme Court on April 16, 2025, in London, England after winning their appeal in defense of biological reality

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Haynes, Snr. Vatican Correspondent

The U.K. Supreme Court has issued a ruling stating that “woman” in law refers to a biological female, and that transgender “women” are not female in the eyes of the law.

In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled today that legally transgender “women” are not women, since a woman is legally defined by “biological sex.”

Published April 16, the Supreme Court’s 88-page verdict was handed down on the case of Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v. The Scottish Ministers (Respondent). The ruling marks the end of a battle of many years between the Scottish government and women’s right campaigners who sought to oppose the government’s promotion of transgender ideology.

In 2018, the Scottish government issued a decision to allow the definition of “woman” to include men who assume their gender to be female, opening the door to allowing so-called “transgender” individuals to identify as women.

This guidance was challenged by women’s rights campaigners, arguing that a woman should be defined in line with biological sex, and in 2022 the Scottish government was forced to change its definition after the court found that such a move was outside the government’s “legislative competence.”

Given this, the government issued new guidance which sought to cover both aspects: saying that biological women are women, but also that men with a “gender recognition certificate” (GRC) are also considered women. A GRC is given to people who identify as the opposite sex and who have had medical or surgical interventions in an attempt to “reassign” their gender.

Women Scotland Ltd appealed this new guidance. At first it was rejected by inner courts, but upon their taking the matter to the Supreme Court in March last year, the nation’s highest judicial body took up the case.

Today, with the ruling issued against transgender ideology, women’s campaigners are welcoming the news as a win for women’s safety.

“A thing of beauty,” praised Lois McLatchie Miller from the Alliance Defending Freedom legal group.

“They looked at the whole argument, not just who goes in what bathroom and trans women. This is going to change organizations, employers, service providers,” Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, told the Telegraph. “Everyone is going to have to pay attention to this, this is from the highest court in the land. It’s saying sex in the Equality Act is biological sex. Self ID is dead.”

“Victory,” commented Charlie Bently-Astor, a prominent campaigner for biological reality against the transgender movement, after she nearly underwent surgical transition herself at a younger age.

“After 15 years of insanity, the U.K. Supreme Court has ruled that men who say they are ‘trans women’ are not women,” wrote leader of the Christian political movement David Kurten.

Leader of the Conservative Party – the opposition to the current Labour government – Kemi Badenoch welcomed the court’s ruling, writing that “saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either.”

Others lamented the fact that the debate even was taking place, let alone having gone to the Supreme Court.

“What a parody we live in,” commented Reform Party candidate Joseph Robertson.

Rupert Lowe MP – who has risen to new prominence in recent weeks for his outspoken condemnation of the immigration and rape gang crisis – wrote, “Absolute madness that we’re even debating what a woman is – it’s a biological fact. No amount of woke howling will ever change that.”

However, the Supreme Court did not wish to get pulled into siding with certain arguments, with Lord Hodge of the tribunal stating that “we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.”

The debate has taken center stage in the U.K. in recent years, not least for the role played by the current Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Starmer himself has become notorious throughout the nation for his contradictions and inability to answer the question of what a woman is, having flip-flopped on saying that a woman can have a penis, due to his support for the transgender movement.

At the time of going to press, neither Starmer nor his deputy Angela Rayner issued a statement about the Supreme Court ruling. There has been no statement issued from the Scottish government either, nor from the office of the first minister.

Transgender activists have expectedly condemned the ruling as “a disgusting attack on trans rights.” One leading transgender campaigner individual told Sky News, “I am gutted to see the judgement from the Supreme Court which ends 20 years of understanding that transgender people with a GRC are able to be, for all intents and purposes, legally recognized as our true genders.”

The Edmonton Institution for Women, one of six women’s corrections facilities in Canada (Photo credit: The Canadian Press/Jason Franson)

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a lawsuit has been launched against the Federal Government, seeking an end to the practice of forcibly confining female inmates of federal prisons with trans-identifying male inmates. The lawsuit claims that this practice is cruel and unusual punishment and violates the Charter rights of female inmates, including “their right to be protected from mental, physical, and sexual abuse…”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the national and non-partisan organization Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights (CAWSBAR) with the Federal Court of Canada in Toronto on April 7, 2025.

Since 2019, CAWSBAR has advocated for a Canada “where women and girls can be assured that their sex-based rights to bodily privacy ,dignity, fairness, and security are upheld both in law and in public policy.”

Their lawsuit takes aim at the Correctional Service Canada’s Commissioner’s Directive 100: Gender Diverse Offenders, which permits the practice of transferring trans-identifying male inmates to any of six women’s prisons across Canada. CAWSBAR is asking the Federal Court to declare that this Directive is of no force or effect.

Their lawsuit references an extensive list of physical and psychological harms female inmates have suffered as a result of being forcibly confined with trans-identifying male prisoners, including sexual assaults, sexual harassment, beatings, stalking, and grooming.

Many female prisoners come from disadvantaged backgrounds that often include past physical and sexual abuse from males. The current practice of having both males and females attend the same group therapy sessions makes it difficult for female inmates to fully participate in the treatment they seek. In advancing CASWBAR’s claim, lawyers will provide the court with evidence of psychological and physical harms that often lead to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, flashbacks of stressful violent and/or emotionally disturbing events involving men, anxiety, anger, depression, hopelessness, and suicidality.

Female inmates are reluctant to complain about these arrangements. The court document states that complaints “are often viewed by correctional officers and staff as harassment, intolerance, and/or ‘transphobia.’ Female inmates do not speak out for fear of an entry on their institutional record, which will eventually be considered by the Parole Board of Canada, and which could impact the decision to grant or not grant parole.”

CAWSBAR is not the first organization to report on the risks associated with forcibly confining female inmates alongside trans-identifying males. According to 2023 research from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, “More than 90% (55 of 61) of [trans-identified male] prisoners were incarcerated for violent offences. Of the group, nearly half (25) had a most serious offence that was homicide related and a third (18) had a most serious offense that was sexual in nature. In comparison, fewer than three-in-10 (6 of 21) [trans-identified females] were convicted of homicide related offences. This proportion of [trans-identified males] incarcerated for sexual and homicide-related offences is extraordinarily high compared to the general female prison population.”

Prior to 2017, only males who had completed sex reassignment surgery could be transferred to a women’s prison.

In October 2016, however, Parliament passed Bill-16, which amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act was also amended to include gender identity and expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination. Bill-16 became law on June 19, 2017, and Correctional Service Canada responded by drafting policies that authorized the transfer into women’s prisons of males who identify as women but have not necessarily undergone any surgical transitions.

The current policy, Commissioner’s directive 100: Gender diverse offenders, came into effect in May 2022.

CAWSBAR’s lawsuit argues that the current practice violates the constitutionally protected rights of female inmates. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees female inmates the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Section 12 guarantees the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment. Section 15 guarantees equality before and under the law as well as the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex.

Their lawsuit also references section 28, which reads, “Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.”

Heather Mason is a CAWSBAR board member and former inmate at the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ontario. She explained the reason for her organization’s involvement and her personal motivation. “We initiated this action,” she stated, “to highlight the federal government’s failure to protect women and to raise public awareness about the cruel and unusual punishment that incarcerated women endure as a result of this transfer policy,” she says.

“This matter is especially important to me as a former federal prisoner,” Ms. Mason continued, “I firmly believe that all women are entitled to sex-based rights and protections as specified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre, stated, “This lawsuit is a pivotal stand for the safety and dignity of female inmates, challenging a policy that disregards their Charter-protected rights and exposes them to intolerable harm. It underscores the urgent need to prioritize the security of vulnerable women over ideological directives.”