There is hope: the British judgment that defends women against woke delirium

In recent years, the left has been promoting what seems to be an endless succession of irrationalities and delusions.

The J.K. Rowling case: this is the dictatorship that the gender ideology is establishing
Gender ideology against biology: this is how they try to demolish our democracy

An inquisitorial wave arising from the dogmas of the far left

To be fair, the left has not been alone in this process: both the so-called centrist movement and some conservatives have absurdly given in to nonsense such as claiming that a man who claims to be a woman should be legally recognized as such. This irrationality consists of putting a person's desires above biology, with serious consequences for the entire society and especially for women, who suddenly see how men who claim to feel like women gain access to women's changing rooms, under threat of heavy fines against those who resist.

These absurdities did not come out of nowhere: they arose from a current of thought, gender ideology, born in the extreme left with the declared objective of dissolving the family as an institution, as the Soviet communist leader Alexandra Kollontai openly stated in her work "Communism and Family" (1920). This crazy ideological current has given rise to inquisitorial processes such as those suffered by the British writer J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter novels, for daring to contradict the dogmas of that ideology.

The warning that G.K. Chesterton made almost 100 years ago

The British writer G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) already predicted what would happen with the advance of some of these absurdities in his time. Let us remember that Karl Marx (1818-1883) was one of the pioneers in this leftist aspiration to liquidate the family institution. In a famous quote, in an article published in 1926, Chesterton stated:

Reason was self-evident before Pragmatism. Mathematics were self-evident before Einstein. But this scepticism is throwing thousands into a condition of doubt, not about occult but about obvious things. We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which furious party cries will be raised against anybody who says that cows have horns, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.

The British Supreme Court upholds the biological definition of woman

Faced with this decline in common sense and freedom of expression, many have lost faith in democratic institutions. However, there is still reason for hope. Yesterday, the UK Supreme Court issued a ruling upholding the biological definition of woman, in the face of claims that any man who claims to be a woman should be recognized as such.

The full judgment in UKSC/2024/0042 can be read here. The judgment includes statements that many now consider to be nonsense, as Chesteron warned, but these statements merely state the obvious. After reviewing British discrimination law, the judgment states:

“These provisions recognise that biological men cannot become pregnant and that no comparison can therefore be made between the case of a sick man and a pregnant woman, both of whom need a period of absence from work.” (137)

“The protection afforded by these provisions is predicated on the fact of pregnancy or the fact of having given birth to a child and the taking of leave in consequence. Since as a matter of biology, only biological women can become pregnant, the protection is necessarily restricted to biological women.” (177)

“The repeated references in these sections, to a woman who has become pregnant or who is breast-feeding only make sense if sex has its biological meaning. These plain, unambiguous words can only be interpreted coherently as references to biological sex, biological females and biological males.” (178)

“Since only biological women can become pregnant, the protection for service-providers is limited to “pregnant women”.” (185b)

“The Second Division of the Inner House recognised the force of this manifestly obvious conclusion in relation to provisions related to pregnancy and maternity. The Inner House concluded that since pregnancy is a matter of fact which hinges entirely on biology, these provisions do mandate a biological meaning of sex (paras 61 and 62 of the judgment).” (189)

The courage of judges who know what they are risking

What I have just cited are just a few examples of what the judgment affirms, based on British law and jurisprudence. It is certainly sad that we have reached the point where a court has to remind us what a woman is, as this indicates the degree of irrationality into which a portion of society has fallen by embracing the dogmas of gender ideology, but it is also worth celebrating that there are institutions as important as the Supreme Court that dare to confront this tide of irrationality, especially considering that judges are human beings and know they risk being singled out and stigmatized.

We must never forget that opposition to gender delusions is not merely an ideological cause, one worth taking a stand for whether one is a conservative or simply disagrees with the views of the left. Furthermore, we are facing a battle in defense of democracy and our civilization, because this corrosive gender ideology is attacking the foundations of both, with increasingly worse consequences for our freedoms.

---

Image: Dzianis Vasilyeu.