Subject: Re: Your Lead story – WI woman ‘insulted’ by trans membership form
Dear Editor,
I was disappointed to read Karen Richards’ comment on the High Court (and now Supreme Court) ruling that “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 means a biological female. She described it as “a nonsense decision… not worth the paper it is written on.”
This is not a “nonsense decision.” On 16 April 2025 the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers that the terms “woman”, “man” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to biological sex as recorded at birth. The court’s 88-page judgment explains in detail why this is the only interpretation consistent with the wording and purpose of the 2010 Act and the limited effect of a Gender Recognition Certificate.
The ruling does not remove trans people’s legal protections under the “gender reassignment” characteristic. It simply confirms that single-sex organisations and services — including the Women’s Institute — may lawfully limit membership or access to biological women where that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The WI has now updated its policy accordingly.
Ms Richards is entitled to her opinion, but she is not entitled to dismiss a binding Supreme Court judgment as worthless. Respect for the rule of law requires engaging with the actual reasoning of the court, not sloganising it away.
Yours faithfully,Andy LargeAlsager West
I was disappointed to read Karen Richards’ comment on the High Court (and now Supreme Court) ruling that “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 means a biological female. She described it as “a nonsense decision… not worth the paper it is written on.”
This is not a “nonsense decision.” On 16 April 2025 the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers that the terms “woman”, “man” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to biological sex as recorded at birth. The court’s 88-page judgment explains in detail why this is the only interpretation consistent with the wording and purpose of the 2010 Act and the limited effect of a Gender Recognition Certificate.
The ruling does not remove trans people’s legal protections under the “gender reassignment” characteristic. It simply confirms that single-sex organisations and services — including the Women’s Institute — may lawfully limit membership or access to biological women where that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The WI has now updated its policy accordingly.
Ms Richards is entitled to her opinion, but she is not entitled to dismiss a binding Supreme Court judgment as worthless. Respect for the rule of law requires engaging with the actual reasoning of the court, not sloganising it away.
Yours faithfully,Andy LargeAlsager West
Comments
Post a Comment