I was never convinced that we needed a Supreme Court. It was a Blairite concoction dreamed up in line with reducing the role of the House of Lords, which had served us well for centuries as the ultimate arbiter of legal cases, and a genuflection to the way things are run in our former colony across the Atlantic.
But, despite having at least one prominent Remainer on board, Lord Sumption, they saved Brexit and now they have earned their keep again with a ruling that sex is biological. One hates to be churlish, but how on earth did we ever reach a situation in our country where a seemingly incontrovertible biological fact became a matter of legal dispute?
The consideration that if a man takes more hormone tablets than are good for him, has his winkie chopped off (many, in fact don’t), grows boobs, wears a wig, lipstick and a skirt that he is transformed into a member of the female sex is ludicrous. It’s as if I bought a Hull City AFC shirt, played keepie-uppie and kicked a football around my garden for a few hours a day, that I would be entitled to play for my local football team. Mind you, having watched them this Monday against Coventry, I might be in with a shout.
Considering yourself female in your own mind is one thing and, if George suddenly becomes Georgina and wants to be called that, I’ll have few objections. Provided George(ina) does not expect me to believe he is really a female. That, until a few years ago, was the unspoken rule. Thus, on occasions, what looked vaguely like a female could occasionally be seen in a gent’s loo hoisting up his skirt and relieving himself at a urinal. As a Scotsman who wears a kilt occasionally, I could empathise.
But things got out of hand, especially North of the nutty border (from whence I hail but, thankfully, no longer live) where what was taking place made Alice in Wonderland look like a manual for a well-run society. Those who identified as men – even without the pills, the surgery or the costumery – not only demanded the right to be recognised as females, but they also wanted to encroach on what had until then been considered female only areas such as toilets and changing rooms. So-called ‘safe spaces’.
To some extent we all had to go along with this, but in Scotland it was enforced. For some reason tampons had to be provided in gents toilets in government buildings. I am unaware of a campaign by women who identify as men wishing to use male toilets and changing rooms, and for good reason. This was not done to accommodate anyone, but to enforce the insane ideology of gender fluidity.
At last, these things can be challenged. As a representative from Women for Scotland said: “Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women, and we are enormously grateful to the Supreme Court for this ruling.” Kemi Badenoch said it was a “victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious”.
One of the Supreme Court judges, Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other. I beg to disagree m’lud. In addition to being a victory for common sense and biological reality, this is a victory of the sane over the insane, the normal over the abnormal and should be treated as such. Extending my football analogy from above, we should be shouting “Who are ya? Who are ya?” and singing “You’re not singing anymore” at the opposition stands. Maybe, for good measure, we should invade the pitch.
It is essential that the outcome of this ruling is driven home; we should press on with our advantage, and ensure that the ideology of gender fluidity is flushed out from wherever it lurks. There is still work to be done. This week the Daily Sceptic ran an article on how gender ideology is still being pushed in schools and from a very young age. Three books by Collins publishers are being used containing such phrases as ‘Your sex is usually decided at birth’ – yes, ‘usually’ and ‘decided’ rather than ‘determined’. Apparently, the world being divided into men and women is a myth.
What influence the Supreme Court ruling will have over the educational quangos that determine what our children and grandchildren learn in school remains to be seen. But it may have given us a torch to shine into the deepest and darkest recesses of state sponsored insanity.
Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He is a columnist with Unity News Network and writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
Why is this ‘ruling’ welcomed as ‘a triumph for commonsense’ rather than mocked for being necessary? Do we now need their Honours to rule that — for instance — under the influence of gravity, objects tend to fall in a downwards direction rather than rise in an upwards one or that two and two does make four? What work for lawyers opens up!
It’s a bit of a hollow victory (except for lawyers and the perpetual victim groups and their supporters who’ve now got something to fight) as it won’t stop this nonsense being peddled full stop, and so will fuel campaigns and legal cases for decades to come or until the ROP takes over when suddenly the options will disappear (although I gather Iran is quite keen on gender reassignment ops but not on half way house pretence).
God must be delighted. Finally vindicated.