Happy new year to all those who actually understood the Supreme Court gender ruling

First: understand the Equality Act 2010. Second: actually read – slowly, if necessary - April’s Supreme Court (SC) ruling in favour of For Women Scotland. Third: as should have been resolved eight months ago, adhere to it. Contrary to what some say, these are far easier things to do than has been claimed in months of obfuscatory nonsense from activists.

One of my favourite moments this year was April 16th, joining FWS’s Trina Budge and supporters in a room in central Edinburgh to await that judgment.

Lord Hodge uttered the magical words, ‘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.’ I’ve never felt relief like it.

A horribly stubborn barrier finally seemed broken; a blast of much-needed reality had arrived to sweep away the nonsense demands of a gender-identity movement that, for years, has denied basic truths about life and law, to the fundamental detriment of women. If the court had concluded otherwise, it would’ve meant some men with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs), which are relatively easily obtained documents altering male birth certificates to say ‘female’, would be permitted women’s rights, erasing lesbians’ rights to male-free spaces, and rape survivors assurance ‘women only’ counselling services were single-sex, amongst other things.

The women in the room that day haven’t forgotten why such things are necessary. That so many have is baffling, demonstrating either flippant disregard for women, a woeful lack of imagination about the reality of male violence, extreme privilege, or a heady combination of all three, plus – in many cases - a dollop of blind zealotry.

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) coming into force. The Equality Act 2010 subsumed this, and all other discrimination law into a unified framework. It has always been ludicrous to assert that when the SDA75 was written, legislators imagined ‘woman’ to mean anything other than ‘female.’

The effects of contrarian gender-identity ideology on women’s dignity, safety, and sanity this last decade, particularly on those who’ve committed to challenging the overriding of women’s rights, has been profound. In the heady moments after the SC ruling, I wasn’t alone in feeling happiness tinged with profound sorrow at the time – the stolen time – of women, who’ve had to argue the obvious, while being severely punished for it.

Walking through Princes Street gardens afterwards, I watched a large group of campaigners gather for a photo. ‘Women Won’t Wheesht!’ they chanted, unfurling a banner, the photographer snapping them for posterity.

A young couple, the man stereotypically foppish, Edinburgh-artsy, thirty-something, and his female partner, walked past. Seeing the women, the young man quietly groaned ‘Oh GOD, not THEM.’

A sinking feeling. A reminder undoing the damage wouldn’t be simple. Also a reminder of the deep class prejudice inherent to this debate. I know from my time working in the Scottish arts, as I did before this issue catapulted my own world topsy-turvy, that such women are viewed in distaste by such types. Unfashionable. Behind the times. Still in hock to that old- fashioned view adhered to by the women who campaigned for the SDA75 in the first place.

FWS’s victory has led to an almighty backlash since April. Gender-activists have taken to the streets, for ‘topless protests’. Meanwhile, many Scottish institutions have openly stated they’re simply going to ignore the crystal-clear SC judgment. Perhaps one of the most difficult things to witness has been publicly-funded women’s groups like Engender calling the confirmation of women’s rights ‘regressive.’ Or, well-loved Scottish cultural figures posting ridiculous messages about how upset they are by the ruling, despite having given zero prior indication of having even followed the wider debate.

I have to hope that if any such women find themselves requiring same-sex intimate care, for example, they’ll be thankful other women fought for their, and their daughter’s, right to such. There’s been an intense, seemingly intentional desire to complicate a ruling that is very easy to understand and implement. I hope 2026 is the year everybody will. Realistically, I fear that’s unlikely. Many tribunals rumble on, and the determination of those with gender-identity beliefs to argue against women’s rights is fierce and often frightening. FWS continue to fight, while still awaiting costs from an intransigent Scottish government.

Meanwhile, last week, a friend sent me an advert for a publicly-funded writing opportunity for Scottish writers. The organisation said they’re ‘particularly keen’ to hear from applicants ‘with a protected characteristic,’ before listing off invented groupings the EQA10 doesn’t include, such as the ubiquitous ‘LGBTQIA+’.

We all have protected characteristics. Including white, straight, men. There are nine PCs, including sex, gender-reassignment, sexual orientation, race, age, and belief. Outwith scenarios that are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (ie, as the SC ruled, ensuring a female-only space is actually female-only, therefore excluding all males), it’s potentially unlawful to award open opportunities to PCs you’re ‘particularly keen’ on, if better candidates apply.

This fundamental misunderstanding of the EQA10, often suggested by such adverts, risks discrimination. While difficult to prove, there’s an understandable perception of bias due to this muddying, particularly in the cultural sector.

Fifty years on from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and fifteen since the EQA10, I therefore wish a happy new year’s reading and study to those who should urgently resolve to do some.