On Tuesday 25th November 2025, Politics in Pubs Manchester welcomed guest speaker Hilary Bichovsky.  Following the Supreme Court Judgement earlier this year about the meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’, and ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010, Hilary has been reflecting on the judgement, what has happened since and what needs to happen.

Introduction

The Equality Act 2010 – overseen by the Equality and Human Rights Commission – imposes duties upon individuals and organisations not to discriminate against people unlawfully.  It cites nine characteristics protected by the Act including sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment.  The Act also contains lawful exemptions i.e. provisions to discriminate where there is good reason to – such as for the protection of women and girls.  These provisions are directed at maintaining the availability of separate or single spaces for women (or men) as a group, for example changing rooms, homeless hostels, segregated swimming areas or counselling services provided only to women (or men).  An example of lawful discrimination would be the exclusion of a man from a single-sex space intended for women, even if he identifies as female.

Many organisations have failed to apply these lawful exemptions and have instead permitted males to enter single-sex spaces and services intended for women and vice versa.  Some have defended this practice by prioritising a person’s self-identified gender over their biological sex – and treating them as though they have become a member of the opposite sex – without due regard for the impact of this position upon others.  The Scottish Government’s position on gender identity – that a man whose self-identified gender is female and who is in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is qualified to take up a board position reserved for a women – resulted in a court case which eventually reached the highest court in the land – the Supreme Court.

The case, ‘For Women Scotland vs The Scottish Ministers’, concluded that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ refer to biological sex even if a person holds a Gender Recognition Certificate.  So a board position lawfully reserved for a woman means that men are excluded.  Any other interpretation of these terms (such as regarding a person’s gender identity as their sex) would render the Act incoherent and impracticable to operate.  The judgement says (at paragraph 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 group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex, and provisions that refer to protections for women necessarily exclude men”.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042

What has happened since?

The Supreme Court Judgement did not create new law, it clarified legislation which has been in place since 2010.  Women and gay men celebrated the ruling, expecting private and public organisations to resume operating within the reality of biological sex.

However, while there have been some changes in policy, procedure and practice, Hilary believes that there has been significantly more inertia and outright defiance, with many organisations claiming that they are unable to act without new guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), seemingly content to continue flouting the law.  Transgender ideology seems to have been inserted into governmental processes as though it is a state religion.

What Needs to Happen?

Hilary suggested that while the Supreme Court Judgement clarified the position regarding biological sex, the Equality Act’s inadequate, open-ended definition of the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ remains problematic:

“A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”.  

This muddled definition provides no clear eligibility criteria for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and how the duties not to discriminate and the lawful exemptions apply. So, while it is unlawful to harass a person perceived to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, it may be necessary to challenge their eligibility to use single-sex spaces based on their appearance in order to apply lawful exemptions.  This is problematic for people who are gender non-conforming, such as feminine males and masculine females, some of whom have been experiencing increased hostility since the judgement was made.  In Hilary’s view neither side of the transgender ideology vs biological reality argument can win in this situation.  The situation will be made worse by the recently announced trial of puberty-blockers in children based on ‘gender-incongruence’ (i.e. imposed by a third party) rather than ‘gender-dysphoria’ (experienced by the child).

Trans-identifying females are another group affected by the Supreme Court Judgement.  Taking male hormones can have a powerful effect including increased muscle-mass, baldness, and a deeper voice.  The judgement makes provision for very masculine-looking females to be excluded from single-sex spaces intended for women, as well as single-sex spaces intended for men.  What happens to them?  It looks unlikely that the current government will rectify their situation.  Even Radical Feminism, which in the past has provided vibrant, creative, artistic spaces for women and opportunities for growth and consciousness-raising, has provided no insights on the Judgement and its impact.

Discussion

Transgender ideology and identify is subjective and we need to restore objectivity to the debate.  If being transgender means harming yourself, that’s mental illness rather than an identity.

Q. If trans-identifying females are not permitted to use either male or female single-sex spaces, where do they go?

A. Exactly.  That needs to be resolved.

Perhaps floor to ceiling toilet cubicles would help people to feel safer.

Q. Transgenderism is a mental illness encouraged by Big Pharma, as demonstrated by the puberty blockers trial permitted by Wes Streeting.  Why are people so afraid to speak out about the harms?

A.  Schools have been trained to affirm a child’s gender dysphoria.  They are probably afraid of losing their jobs if they do otherwise.  People should be truthful without being disrespectful and truth should not be treated as bigotry.

Parents may be afraid of having their children removed.  The transgender ideology propaganda has been as powerful as military propaganda and makes people deny reality.

It’s really important to speak out while remaining calm and courteous.  The silent majority agree – they just want someone else to be the first person to speak out rationally and break the culture of silence.  The Supreme Court Judgement is useful because it clarifies the Equality Act law on biological sex and can be quoted.  You can afford to be compassionate towards a person’s individual circumstances without denying your own position of being FOR the rights of women, girls and gay people, and FOR puberty not being treated as an illness rather than being AGAINST people who sympathise with transgender ideology.

Q.  The transgender phase is not built on much and the consequences of surgery and other treatments will help to defeat it.  If we had a government that banned DEI and transgender affirmation it would help – do you agree?

A. But what about the longevity of the people who have already gone down the route of chemical treatments, aided and abetted by institutions and medical/pharmaceutical industries?  What happens to those people in the meantime?  It’s important to attack the institutions not the transgender people.

It’s very important to have the first person willing to speak out.  It’s also important: challenge references to the government’s money because they don’t fund transgender surgery on healthy bodies – it’s us the taxpayer.  Sometimes making that point can be persuasive in how someone sees a situation.  Language is powerful and it’s easy to plant a seed – for example a school assembly about bullying can generate complaints of bullying, fear of being labelled homophobic can make being straight seem like a bad thing.

Q. Even many of the gender non-conforming want the Supreme Court Judgement to be implemented. but you’re right, it’s important to go after the institutions, not the individuals.  Transgender ideology has affected education, sex-based reality, Big Pharma, hospital wards, prisons etc.  A person’s presentation doesn’t change their sex – men are usually identified as such by their hands, feet, Adam’s apple.  Even Julie Bindel says that the effect of the judgement on ‘butch lesbians’ is not a reason not to comply with the law.  So-called ‘changing villages’ in leisure centres are a really good example of why single-sex spaces are needed.  If women decide to present as males and then get excluded from female spaces AND men’s spaces, then in some ways it has to be a case of ‘hard luck’ – what would you say?

A. Totally agree and it is clear that organisations must comply with the Equality Act 2010 as clarified but the judgement.  However, compliance with stray into some of the areas I’ve mentioned and there doesn’t seem to be a solution.

Q. Why do so many organisations seem to feel entitled to remain unlawful regarding their failure to protect women, girls and gay people?  The EHRC is meant to oversee compliance with the Equality Act and yet this watchdog has done nothing to address the rise of gender self-identity and prioritisation of gender reassignment over the rights of other people sharing the protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation.  The challenge to organisations is not coming from the EHRC, the Goliath, but from Davids like Maya Forstater and For Women Scotland – why is that?

A. The main problem is with the legislation itself – the poor definition of ‘gender reassignment’ in the Act has caused it to conflict with other people’s rights.

The Equality Act is a bad law and FWS took a risk when they pursued their case to the Supreme Court – judges can make bad decisions but fortunately for us FWS had honed their arguments.  Transgender ideology is very damaging but gradually the situation is changing.

The transgender movement is aggressive.  Children have always been gender non-conforming but now the debate has shifted into the world of fiction and fantasy about changing sex – this needs to be made illegal.  Transgender surgery is unethical because it is not medical nor is it cosmetic.  Big Pharma is probably behind it because if children can be converted into patients for life (i.e. medication, surgery, treatment of side-effects and long-term health consequences), companies stand to make billions of dollars.  We need to speak up – complain with compassion.

Q. There is definitely an issue of gender non-conforming men accessing single-sex spaces intended for males.  Men adore femininity when it can be controlled.  When it can’t be controlled, this can lead to male violence towards women and towards feminine men.  Perhaps there needs to be more of a discussion about male violence towards feminine men?

A.  That’s true.  Socialising men to tolerate femininity in other men might help although difficult with the abundance of pornography.

Unfortunately institutions, NGOs, and the gatekeepers are not going to give in lightly because they avidly ‘trans-inclusive’ to the detriment of others.  It will take small groups like FWS and individuals like Sharron Davies to challenge them.

Q.  What should one do if asked to use incorrect pronouns to describe another person?

A.  Pronouns can be regarded as the first step on the transgender journey.  No-one can dictate your own perceptions and force you into an untruth.  Friends cannot control your speech, you should resist.  It is not loving to collude in a lie.  This is not ‘trans mysogyny’ – at its root it is actual mysogyny against women and girls.

This shift in the way we see human rights is upsetting the natural order of things and does not reflect the truth.  Male violence and suicide can be linked to the deconstruction of men’s traditional values, role models, and family life.  Gang culture is a prime example.  The best way to protect women is to build up the men, providing good role models and a family life.

Having access to other adults during one’s formative years is an essential part of growing up.  It enables young people to talk things through and get  sense of reality from people who are not their parents.  Hearing someone outside your family circle describe you as ‘being at a funny age’ is very grounding!

Thank you…..

Politics in Pubs Manchester would like to thank Hilary Bichovsky for a thoughtful reflection of the Supreme Court Judgement and its impact. We would also like to thank our wonderful hosts at The Welcome Inn.  Cheers all!

Upcoming events

All our future events are advertised here: Upcoming Events.