Defending biology against Leftwing bigotry shouldn’t be necessary. Yet, here we are.

The UK’s Supreme Court just schooled a bunch of Scottish adults in the elementary differences between a man and a woman.

Ruling in favour of women’s rights organisation For Women Scotland, the court declared that a person without a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), “retains the sex in which they were born.”

The court rejected the popular conflating of the terms sex with gender.

They also drew a distinction between a transsexual person and transgender person.

While women everywhere justifiably expressed joy and relief at defeating the trans takeover of female-only spaces, the court’s decision wasn’t a complete and total win.

I love it when a plan comes together.#SupremeCourt #WomensRights pic.twitter.com/agOkWmhPgb

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) April 16, 2025

Preferencing bureaucrats over and against biology, the court declared that any man with a GRC was still to be referred to as a woman.

In other words, a man cosplaying as a woman doesn’t make him a woman.

However, it does if a piece of paper from the UK government permits a man to identify as one.

Those born male who have a female GRC are considered female.

As highlighted above, the court clearly states in its conclusion that “a person with a GRC affirming their chosen female gender comes within the definition of ‘woman,’ as per the Equality Act.

Despite the court ruling in favour of protecting female-only spaces, the Supreme Court still backs the legal “right” for a man to identify as a woman, and punish anyone who doesn’t refer to him as one.

GRCs are not hard to get.

According to the UK Government, a GRC is granted if a person:

• Is over 18.
• Has been diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria.
• Has spent 2 years living by their “affirmed gender.”
• Is committed to living this way for life.

Furthermore, GRCs do not require a person to have “had any gender reassignment surgery or treatments,” or have any plans to do so.

There’s even a workaround for the gender dysphoria requirement.

“You might still be able to apply!” the same UK government website states.

All that’s required is reassignment surgery, and proof you’ve been living by “you’re affirmed gender for at least 6 years.”

If you’re a card-carrying – “women can have a penis, men can get pregnant” – member of the alphabet mafia the news isn’t all that bad.

By affirming “acquired gender” instead of asserting biologically assigned sex, the UK Supreme Court subdued the significance of its ruling.

I would even argue they somewhat negated it.

Page 17 of the Supreme Court ruling made it clear that “acquired gender” still trumps biological sex.

“Where a GRC has been issued, the person’s gender becomes, for all purposes, the acquired gender.

“If the acquired gender is the male gender, “the person’s sex becomes that of a man.

“If it is the female gender, “the person’s sex becomes that of a woman.”

Likewise, page 25 notes, “A person with a GRC has a prima facie right to access the services of their acquired sex.

“Those without a GRC remain the sex assigned to them at birth and therefore would have no prima facie right to access services provided for members of the opposite sex.”

The court was also repeatedly reserved about determining sex based upon a person’s chromosomal DNA at birth.

To paraphrase one UK law firm’s remarks,

“The Supreme Court’s decision provides some clarity on the interpretation of sex in anti-discrimination law, by reinforcing the distinction between biological sex and gender reassignment.”

This is a BIG win.

However, the ruling is not the necessary final blow to “asserting biology is bigotry” LGBTQ+ gender critical theory.

This was a restrained ruling that offers hope to some, and stands as are reminder to others that more still needs to be done.