They should force the SC pronounce itself as to what tf means that for them. I’d bet they are unable to give a definition of “biological woman” that doesn’t leave out a lot of what they think “true women” are. Carriers of two X chromosomes? Outliers. Carriers of no Y chromosomes? Outliers. Possessors of a uterus? Outliers. Producers of the big gamete (Rowling’s favourite) unless-unable-to-due-to-a-condition-that-is-morally-acceptable? Outliers everywhere. Then those outliers should sue.
Also curious why they aren’t worried about defining men. They should be forced to unless they want to tacitly be defining men as non-women. Which would be funny, but probably undesirable for them.
Also curious why they aren’t worried about defining men
They did:
We are content to draw on the terminology used by the Scottish Ministers in their written case for the purposes of this judgment and have adopted the following terms. A person who is a biological man, ie who was at birth of the male sex, but who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described as a “trans woman”. Similarly, a person who is a biological woman, ie who was at birth of the female sex, but who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described as a “trans man”. We describe trans women and trans men who have obtained a gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) under the GRA 2004 as “trans women with a GRC” and “trans men with a GRC” respectively and their gender resulting from the GRC as their “acquired gender” or “acquired sex"
"Although the word ‘biological’ does not appear in this definition, 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.
“Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group.”
Women are usually more than a single characteristic, for example a human being with only 2 legs and no arms doesn’t suddenly turn into a duck
Then those outliers should sue.
They probably will, they can be very aggressive:
“Please just use my first name,” she says, “because if I am identified as being in any way gender critical, trans activists will never leave me alone.”
Kelly Frost, an artist, aged 49, is another lesbian who has learnt from bitter experience that running a women-only night at a so-called LGBTQ+ venue is unlikely to end well. Heated campaigns against such “transphobic” and “trans-exclusionary” practices are quickly initiated, and venue owners, managers and even bar staff, inundated with threats and complaints – and fearful of losing their livelihoods, tend to cave in to the pressure.
They should force the SC pronounce itself as to what tf means that for them. I’d bet they are unable to give a definition of “biological woman” that doesn’t leave out a lot of what they think “true women” are. Carriers of two X chromosomes? Outliers. Carriers of no Y chromosomes? Outliers. Possessors of a uterus? Outliers. Producers of the big gamete (Rowling’s favourite) unless-unable-to-due-to-a-condition-that-is-morally-acceptable? Outliers everywhere. Then those outliers should sue.
Also curious why they aren’t worried about defining men. They should be forced to unless they want to tacitly be defining men as non-women. Which would be funny, but probably undesirable for them.
They did:
> "These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation.
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Women are usually more than a single characteristic, for example a human being with only 2 legs and no arms doesn’t suddenly turn into a duck
They probably will, they can be very aggressive:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/18/lesbian-events-women-only/