April’s Supreme Court judgment ought to have been the final nail in the coffin for transgender ideology. The belief that you can pick your gender, like you would a hat in the morning, seemed to have ended. The highest court unanimously confirmed that for the purposes of the Equality Act, sex is biological – immutable, material and not up for ideological reinterpretation.
Yet if the past decade has taught us anything, it is that the gender industry doesn’t give up; it adapts. Numerous organisations, many taxpayer-funded, now exist for the sole purpose of pushing back against any resistance to trans orthodoxy. Defeat is merely a fundraising opportunity.
The semantic contortions have already begun. India Willoughby, a biological male who has fathered a child, has tweeted: ‘UK Supreme Court rules butterflies are biological caterpillars and frogs are biological tadpoles. It means butterflies can no longer fly – and frogs are banned from sitting on leaves. Butterflies and frogs say they will ignore the ruling.’ If you can’t make any sense of this point, join the club.
Then there’s Dr Helen Webberley, founder of GenderGP, a ‘clinic’ that is registered in Singapore in an attempt to circumvent UK laws about prescribing children puberty blockers and hormones. She recently told GB News that while the Supreme Court has confirmed ‘the literal interpretation of the Equality Act is that “woman” is biological sex… they haven’t said what biological sex is’. Activists almost succeeded in redefining ‘woman’. Now they have lost that fight, on they move to the definition of ‘biological’.
Predictably, a legal counteroffensive is already under way.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in