A recent Supreme Court decision regarding the legal definition of “woman” within the Equality Act 2010 has ignited a contentious debate and sparked heated exchanges. The ruling, prompted by a challenge from For Women Scotland, found that the Act refers to “a biological woman and sex,” as declared by Lord Hodge of the Supreme Court.
The outcome has been met with sharply contrasting reactions. Paola Diana, Chair of the Women’s Policy Centre, celebrated the verdict, describing it as a “great day” and asserting that gender recognition certificates are essentially “legal fiction.” Speaking on GB News, she argued:
>“The Gender Recognition Act 2004 invented the gender certificate, and it’s a legal fiction, it isn’t fit for purpose. It created legal problems because it undermined the law… today is a great day, and I think this is the time for this Government to repeal the Gender Recognition Act, because the gender certificate has no value in law.”
In response, transgender activist Freda Wallace sharply criticized Diana’s assessment, characterizing the ruling as an “attack on equality law.” Wallace stated:
>“I think this is an attack on the equality law. I think it’s a misogynistic force… This affects me personally, directly.”
The debate escalated further when Diana turned to address Wallace directly. She asserted that Wallace is “a man,” regardless of appearance, and cautioned against allowing individuals to access women-only spaces under false pretenses.
>“I’m afraid the language he’s using is completely wrong – he is a man… Misogyny is a behaviour against women… we don’t want men to start invading our spaces.”
Diana argued that permitting anyone – including potential offenders – to claim female identity for access could pose a serious risk. “The gender certificate was posing a threat to women because any man, any pervert, any killer, any paedophile, any rapist could have just said, oh, I feel I’m a woman today.”
Wallace countered this argument vehemently, objecting to the association of transgender individuals with criminal behavior.
>“I think we can all fully understand there are certain situations where sex does matter in law, but she’s aligning the word pedophile with me in a conversation, that is very dangerous.”
She also questioned the motivations behind the gender-critical movement, arguing it undermines feminist principles. “There are no prizes for women at the end of the gender critical movement, because it doesn’t actually support feminism, it rejects feminism.”
Diana concluded her remarks by emphasizing the need to protect vulnerable individuals and asserted that her stance is about safeguarding children and women.
>“This victimhood culture, I despise this. It’s not about me and you, it’s about protecting children and women of this country – it’s about protecting the ones who are most vulnerable.”
Recent reactions to the ruling include praise from an MSP and a student hailing the decision as a “victory” for those holding gender-critical views. Sharron Davies also expressed her support for upholding the traditional definition of woman.
