UK Supreme Court Finds Women Exist

In the year 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that women exist.

The shocking ruling by two lady justices (Lady Rose and Lady Simler) and one lord (Lord Hodge) found for the existence of women and concluded that men do not become women by putting on dresses and getting a government document certifying that they’re female now.

The two elderly Jewish ladies and Scottish lord, who are presumably quite aware that they are ladies and lords, and not vice versa, concluded “that sex has its biological meaning.”

Furthermore that “Parliament in using the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ …referred to biological sex” and that the Scottish government had not successfully “nullified the definition of ‘woman’”.

Akin to Galileo’s legendary “e pur si muove”, the lord and ladies tentatively laid out their shocking conclusion that women are not men and that men are not women in the gentlest of fashions to avoid shocking the delicate sensibilities of the woke who believe otherwise.

The ruling politely noted that the woefully misnamed Gender Recognition Act (GRC) of 2004 which provided men with a ‘certificate’ stating that they are really women… would be of a small comfort to women confronted with a man in a changing room or a rape counselling group.

“While many women in a female-only changing room or on a women-only hospital ward or in a rape counselling group might reasonably object to the presence of biological males, it is difficult to see how the reasonableness of such an objection could be founded on possession or lack of a certificate,” the ruling noted.

A piece of paper cannot make a man into a woman. No amount of pieces of paper, no matter how sharp, are likely to do that. The movements of pieces of paper do not change biology. All they certify is that government authorities expect everyone to pretend that a man is a woman. No ‘naked emperor’ fable is more naked than that we are expected to ignore the obvious sex of a man or woman because ideological fashion or government tell us that a man is a woman

A woman confronted with a naked man might, the likely ladies, point out, not be aware that he possesses a certificate which makes him a woman. “This is so especially when the distinction does not track physical appearance or presentation, and the woman is unlikely to have any information about the GRC at the point at which her objection might be raised.”

And if six foot tall men with beards who possess a certificate saying that they are women can use the ladies shower or show up to a rape counselling session, then what’s the basis for discriminating against six-foot-tall bearded men who forgot their ‘woman card’ at home?

The ruling therefore continues that “a service-provider is required to provide services previously limited to women also to trans women with a GRC even if they present as biological men, it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men and who also look like biological men.” If you’re going to let Bob in, who has a GRC, what’s the reason for not letting in Steve, who doesn’t have a GRC, but looks just like Bob does?

Are women really supposed to be more comfortable with Bob because he has a piece of paper? (A piece of paper that he doesn’t even have to display on demand to prove he’s a ‘woman’.)

Sex, in short, is not a Monty Python routine in which GRC certificates and other bureaucratic paraphernalia determine reality. If the single-sex accommodations provided for by British law actually exist, then they have to be limited to women or the whole thing becomes a farce.

And that’s what the transgender movement has done by insisting that sex is a state of mind.

Scottish and other authorities had tried to pretend that a man is a woman by virtue of a certificate while the Supreme Court countered that “this would undermine the very considerations of privacy and decency between the sexes both in the availability of communal sleeping accommodation and in the use of sanitary facilities.” The demands for single sex privacy are not based on government certificates and can’t be fixed with them. A government certified woman is still a man and anyone who thinks otherwise is positively certifiable.

“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’” and be entirely absurd when applied to “pregnancy and maternity”.

Sex, an earlier British court might have said, is assigned by God, not by government certificates.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States Supreme Court was unable to define what is a woman, pathetically replying, “I am not a biologist.” Her far better qualified British counterparts appear to have overcome her handicap with biology and have defined what is a woman.

In the era of a thousand genders blooming in soy latte joints, the UK Supreme Court heretically insisted that “the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.”

Ketanji could learn from the court’s lesson in elementary biology and sanity.

In the throes of cultural insanity in the year 2025, the UK Supreme Court is forced to point out that “the meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’…is biological and not certificated sex.”

A century ago the notion of a government issuing certificates to men that they are really women on demand would have been imagined only as the grossest satire, but now a court ruling affirming reality is a vital and courageous statement that defies the dictates of the establishment.

As a certain Briton variously named Eric or more famously George once wrote, “we have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” The existence of men and women has become one of those obvious things that must be restated.

J.R.R. Tolkien once said that “cellar door” is the most beautiful word in the English language. There is something even more simple and beautiful about the pure logical words in which the court states that “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation.” And thus it should have been always.

If beauty is truth and truth is beauty, then this is a beautiful ruling. It’s also beautiful to the women who fought long and hard to be recognized as members of a sex whose identity is innate, not bestowed on them by the ideological biases of a government agency. What is ultimately at stake in the debate over the definition of a woman is our individual humanity.

By reaffirming the existence of women, a lord and two ladies of entirely determinable sex have also reaffirmed the unwavering humanity of all men and women.

Source: http://www.danielgreenfield.org/feeds/1852696554272196471/comments/default