Why did it need the UK Supreme Court to tell us what a woman is?

 

UK Supreme Court Judges

I am not a medical man but I am aware that some babies can be born 'intersex' with sexually ambiguous genitalia. As I understand it, when this happens the child is assigned a sex and surgical procedures are performed to align their genitals with that sex.

Some people get confused with biological sex and gender which is a social construct. It's really about how we expect men and women to behave in society. Biological sex is not the same thing as gender and it isn't just about penises. In my view if a man undergoes surgery to remove his penis, it doesn't make him a biological woman. Nor does self-identifying as a woman, make you a woman.  

The Supreme Court decision was about how you define a 'woman' for the purposes of the Equalities Act. The court ruled that this is determined by a person's biological sex. Why it needed the Supreme Court to tell us what a woman is, says a lot about the state of British society. At the root of this debate, is relativism; the belief that standards of truth, morality and meaning, are not universal but are dependent on context, culture or historical period. Personally, I couldn't care less whether someone considers themselves a minotaur or a centaur, but don’t expect me to buy into it, because I still believe that reality is worth defending.

On this issue of transgenderism, we are being expected to collude in a fiction and abandon reality and this is what many people object to. They feel they're being gas lighted - being made to doubt their own reasoning. I believe that in the NHS, they give smear tests to transgender women, who don’t have a cervix. Some local authorities have been putting women's sanitary products in men's toilets. It's what the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, would have called "nonsense upon stilts."