Summarize and humanize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in EnglishJK Rowling has channelled the A-Team as she continued to celebrate a Supreme Court ruling that trans women are not legally women – posting a picture of herself puffing on a cigar on her $150million superyacht.The Harry Potter author claimed yesterday’s decision, which found the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, as a major victory for ‘the rights of women and girls across the UK’.The 59-year-old has been a vocal supporter of campaign group For Women Scotland, throwing her cultural and financial clout behind its long-running legal battle against the Scottish government over the definition of a ‘woman’ in Scottish law.That paid dividends yesterday, when the judges unanimously ruled that the words ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the Equality Act must mean ‘biological sex’, sparking jubilant scenes outside the Supreme Court in London.It means the legal definition of ‘woman’ only applies to those who were born female, and trans women do not have the right to use single-sex women-only spaces such as toilets or changing rooms.While trans activists reacted with fury to the decision, branding it ‘evil’ and calling it a set back for transgender rights, Rowling and others took to social media to celebrate it as a victory for women ad common sense.And after sharing a post on X, formerly Twitter, suggesting she and her husband were clinking glasses of Champagne after the ruling, she has now followed up with a selfie of her smoking on her boat which online trackers record as being near the Bahamas.She accompanied it with the words: ‘I love it when a plan comes together. #SupremeCourt #WomensRights.’ JK Rowling has owned her $150million superyacht since 2023, renaming it Samsara The author has been posting on social media following the landmark Supreme Court ruling JK Rowling shared a photo of what appeared to be two glasses of prosecco under a sunny canopy, as she toasted the decision with her husband Neil MurrayThat was the catchphrase of the A-Team character and leader George ‘Hannibal’ Smith, played in the 1980s TV series by the late George Peppard. Rowling is believed to have bought the superyacht in 2023, renaming it Samsara after it was previously completed in 2015 with the title Infinity before later being called Cloud 9.’Samsara’ is a Sanskrit word that translates as ‘wandering’ and is also used as a reference to death and rebirth in the ancient Indian tradition of karma.The boat is 88.5 metres long, can accommodate 12 guests and a crew of 26, while also featuring a 5m circular pool, a beach club and a ‘state of the art’ cinema. Rowling also hit back at suggestions she was smoking a ‘blunt’, associated with cannabis use, in the picture she shared.She posted: ‘To those celebrating the fact that I’m smoking a blunt: it’s a cigar. Even if it decided to identify as a blunt for the purposes of this celebration, it would remain objectively, provably and demonstratively a cigar.’ She also told in replies how the photo was taken by one of her daughters and the drink she was sipping was an ‘Old Fashioned’ cocktail.Earlier in the evening, Rowling had shared a photo on X of what appeared to be two glasses of prosecco under a sunny canopy, as she toasted the decision with her husband Neil Murray. Alongside the image, she wrote: ‘We toasted you @ForWomenScot. Neil says it’s TERF VE Day [laughing emoji] #SupremeCourt #WomensRights.’The term ‘TERF’ is used to describe people whose views on gender identity are seen as hostile towards transgender people.The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be protected from discrimination as a woman under the Equality Act.The Scottish government had argued that such people were entitled to sex-based protections, meaning a transgender person with a GRC certificate identifying them as female would count towards women’s quota – but campaign group For Women Scotland claimed they only applied to people born female. Susan Smith (L) and Marion Calder, Directors of For Women Scotland, make a statement outside the Supreme Court JK Rowling’s cigar post has prompted praise from followers on social media, including mentions of 1980s TV series The A-Team and former UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill The judgment was celebrated by women’s rights groups who opened a bottle of champagne. Pictured: Susan Smith (centre left), Marion Calder (centre right) and Helen Joyce (right) Alongside the image, she wrote: ‘ We toasted you @ForWomenScot. Neil says it’s TERF VE Day [laughing emoji] #SupremeCourt #WomensRights’ Harry Potter author JK Rowling, pictured in April 2018, welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling The Supreme Court has announced that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex in a landmark ruling. Pictured: Campaign group For Women Scotland celebrating the judgement Lord Hodge said that five Supreme Court justices had unanimously decided that ‘the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act refer to a ‘biological woman and biological sex’ Marion Calder (centre), Helen Joyce (centre left) and Maya Forstater (left) celebrate outside the Supreme Court in LondonThe ruling comes after years of campaigning by gender-critical figures including Harry Potter author Rowling, who reacted on Wednesday by posting on X: ‘It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK. @ForWomenScot, I’m so proud to know you.’ She later added: ‘Trans people have lost zero rights today, although I don’t doubt some (not all) will be furious that the Supreme Court upheld women’s sex-based rights.’ In an 88-page ruling, the justices said: ‘The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.’They stated: ‘A person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the female gender does not come within the definition of a ‘woman’ under the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory guidance issued by the Scottish ministers is incorrect.’High-profile cases which have caused controversy in recent years include that of a transgender double rapist who was jailed for eight years in February 2023 after raping two women in West Dunbartonshire and Glasgow.The sex attacker was charged with the offences as Adam Graham, but changed gender while waiting to stand trial and took the name Isla Bryson.The case sparked public outcry, including from JK Rowling, after Bryson was sent to the all-female Cornton Vale prison outside Stirling, before later being transferred to a male prison.Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has praised yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling as a ‘victory’ for women and said it meant the ‘era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end’. JK Rowling has been posting on X, formerly Twitter, about today’s Supreme Court verdict For Women Scotland directors Susan Smith (left) and Marion Calder (right) celebrate the landmark ruling The case of transgender double rapist Isla Bryson (pictured), who was jailed for eight years in February, sparked controversy after the attacker was initially sent to a women’s prison Transgender double rapist Isla Bryson (pictured)What does the Supreme Court gender ruling mean? What did the Supreme Court rule?The Supreme Court ruled the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.What does it mean for single sex spaces? The court’s decision will have huge consequences for how single-sex spaces and services operate across the UK, experts said today.The written Supreme Court judgment gives examples including rape or domestic violence counselling, refuges, rape crisis centres, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms. The court ruled that trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if ‘proportionate’.The government said the ruling ‘brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs’.What does it mean for employers?Employment experts say it will provide companies with greater ‘clarity’ over single sex spaces for their staff.Lara Brown, senior Research Fellow in the Culture and Identity Unit at Policy Exchange, said a trans woman with a GRC who is excluded from single-sex spaces cannot say she is being discriminated against as a woman.She explained: ‘This ruling makes it legal for any space that wants to be single sex to exclude biological men.’Could employers still be at risk of discrimination?The Supreme Court made it clear that trans people are protected under the gender reassignment provisions in the Equality Act and will be able to bring claims if they are discriminated or harassed. Experts say a trans woman will be able to bring a sex discrimination claim if they are disadvantaged because they are perceived to be a woman or because they associate with a woman. Rob McKellar, legal services director at Peninsula, said failure to be an inclusive workplace, regardless of any protected characteristics, could result in a discrimination claim. What does the ruling mean for competitive sports?In recent years, many sports have cracked down on rules around transgender athletes at the elite level.Athletics, cycling and aquatics are among those who have banned trans women from taking part in women’s events. The UK government said it hopes the decision will provide clarity for sports clubs. Although today’s ruling did not concern sport directly, former Olympian Sharron Davies welcomed the decision, saying it was important to ‘define what a woman is’.Could a pregnant woman with a GRC be entitled to maternity leave? Experts said today that the ruling that only women can become pregnant shows a trans man (biological woman) would be able to take maternity leave, while a trans woman (biological man) would not. Jo Moseley, an employment law specialist at national law firm Irwin Mitchell, said: ‘The Supreme Court acknowledged that only women can become pregnant. Therefore a trans man (a biological woman who identifies as a man) can take maternity leave. ‘Had the court reached a different decision, it’s possible that trans men with a GRC wouldn’t have been entitled to protection in relation to pregnancy under the characteristics of ‘pregnancy or maternity’.’ In handing down the court’s judgement, Lord Hodge said he recognised ‘the strength of feeling on both sides’ and cautioned against seeing the judgment as a triumph for one side over another, stressing that the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination. He said: ‘The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological woman and biological sex. ‘In a judgement written by Lady Rose, Lady Simler and myself, with whom Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones agree, we unanimously allow the appeal.’Lord Hodge added: ‘But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not. ‘The Equality Act gives transgender people protection not only against discrimination through the protected characteristics of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and harassment, in substance in their acquired gender.’He recognised the ‘strength of feeling on all sides’ which lies behind the case, adding: ‘On the one hand women, who make up one half of the population, have campaigned for over 150 years to have equality with men and to combat discrimination based on their sex. That work still continues.’On the other hand, a vulnerable and often harassed minority, the trans community, struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity.’The judgment was celebrated by women’s rights groups, who cheered outside the court, opened a bottle of champagne and broke into song after the ruling was handed down.But a furious protester shouted, ‘Trans rights are human rights’ at those gathered, adding: ‘Even if you kill every last one of us another will be born tomorrow.’Marion Calder, co-director of FSW which successfully challenged the Scottish Government, told the Daily Mail that she was ‘absolutely’ delighted by the judgment – ‘as I’m sure the vast majority of women across Great Britain feel’, she added.’Even today we had absolutely no idea which way this was going to go.’We’re just a grass routes organisation that started up in my living room ten years ago with absolutely nothing but a plan to fight back to maintain women’s rights.’We actually thought that if we just spoke to governments either here in Westminster or up in Scotland that they would listen, but we were unfortunately mistaken.’She said that she ‘certainly hopes’ it draws a line under the gender debate, adding: ‘In day to day life, you can go around and it doesn’t really matter what your sex is. ‘But in certain circumstances it is very important, such as prisons or women’s sport, changing rooms or rape crisis centres. This is where it’s actually important.’Especially for the lesbians who intervened in this case, if they hadn’t actually won today it would have been illegal for lesbians, or gay men, to have a group of more than 25 people if they didn’t admit the opposite sex and we’d have the ridiculous notion of a lesbian with a penis.’Maya Forstater, chief executive of human rights charity Sex Matters which intervened in the case, also said she was ‘delighted’ by the outcome.She added: ‘We are delighted that the Supreme Court has accepted the arguments of For Women Scotland and rejected the position of the Scottish Government.’The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not to paperwork.’ Conservative party leader Mrs Badenoch praised campaign group FWS.’Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in law either,’ she said. ‘This is a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.’The era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end. Well done to For Women Scotland!’Mims Davies, the shadow minister for women, hailed it as a ‘clear victory for common sense’. The UK Supreme Court decision is a ‘victory for women across the United Kingdom’, the leader of the Scottish Tories has said. Campaigners Helen Joyce (left) and Maya Forstater of Sex Matters smile outside court after the landmark ruling Crowds of people cheered and broke into song after the ruling was handed down Activists celebrate after hearing the outcome of the Supreme Court’s judgment on how to define a ‘woman’, in London on Wednesday The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) stipulating their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Equality Act The Scottish government argued that such people are entitled to sex-based protections, while campaign group FWS claimed they only apply to people that are born female Marion Calder (centre), co-director of FSW which successfully challenged the Scottish Government, told the Daily Mail that she was ‘absolutely’ delighted by the judgement The outcome is set to have implications across England, Scotland and Wales Fiona McAnena, Maya Forstater, Pam Ghosal and Helen Joyce stand outside the Supreme Court after the ruling Susan Smith and Marion Calder celebrate as they leave the Supreme Court after the verdictRussell Findlay hailed the decision, which confirmed that the definition of woman in the 2010 Equality Act refers to biological women, as an ‘abject humiliation for the SNP’.Kate Barker, chief executive of campaign group LGB Alliance which intervened in the case, described the judgment as a ‘profound relief’. She said it marked a watershed moment in the fight for lesbian rights following years of mounting attacks, in particular from proponents of gender identity ideology. ‘The ruling confirms that the words “gay” and “lesbian” refer to same-sex sexual orientation and makes it absolutely clear that lesbians wishing to form associations of any size are lawfully entitled to exclude men – whether or not they possess a GRC,’ she said.’It is difficult to express the significance of this ruling – it marks a watershed for women and, in particular, lesbians who have seen their rights and identities steadily stolen from them over the last decade.’Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: ‘Today the Supreme Court ruled that a gender recognition certificate does not change a person’s legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.’We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the Court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.’As we did not receive the judgment in advance, we will make a more detailed statement once we have had time to consider its implications in full.’ Women were seen celebrating and hugging after the landmark ruling that trans women are not legally womenThe United Nation’s special rapporteur on violence against women and girls praised the ruling as a ‘triumph of reason and facts’. Reem Alsalem said: ‘I welcome this decision by the UK Supreme Court holding that the term “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act of 2010 refers to biological sex.’It represents the triumph of reason and facts based deliberations and the return of common sense. ‘Congratulations to For Women Scotland and all their allies that have supported them in their quest to uphold the rights of women to equality and non-discrimination.’The ruling is a recognition that the erasure of the ordinary meaning of sex in law and in policies has rendered it impossible to upholding the protection [of] women, including lesbians on the basis of the characteristic of sex. Beyond the UK, I hope other jurisdictions are paying attention to this groundbreaking ruling.’Lara Brown, thinktank Policy Exchange’s senior research fellow for culture and identity, said: ‘By confirming that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means “biological sex”, the Supreme Court has secured women’s sex-based rights – rights to which they have always been entitled as a matter of law.’While this is a welcome victory, it should never have been left to the courts to answer the question of “what is a woman?”‘Had the Government used their statutory powers to clarify that sex in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, when Policy Exchange called for them to do in 2023, the Scottish ministers would never have been able to issue unlawful advice on the subject.’ Activists celebrate after hearing the outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling on how to define a ‘woman’Ceri Williams, from Labour Women’s Declaration, told the Mail: ‘The Labour Government has repeatedly stated its commitment to the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act for biological women. It was in their manifesto.’The work starts today to make sure that all governments departments and public bodies review and revise all their policies to bring them in line with this common sense judgement from the Supreme Court.’Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry said former Scotland First Minister Nicola Sturgeon owed her an apology.She said: ‘I’m a long-term feminist. I’m a lesbian who came out in the Eighties and campaigned against Section 28.’I’ve had to put up with my own party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, calling me a bigot and a transphobe for sticking up for the rights of women and lesbians.’I think she owes all of us, not just me, and more importantly the women of Scotland, an apology.’TV writer Graham Linehan, who was outside court following the decision, said: ‘I think for 10 years we’ve had two things fighting each other, which is women’s rights and the desire of some men to be considered women in all circumstances.’And today that that is no longer tenable. I think that people have been harassed out of their jobs have been put in prison cells, dragged through tribunals or have had to launch tribunals themselves. I think that’s all over – so I couldn’t be happier.’But a pro-transgender group has claimed that the gender-critical campaigners have ‘links to the global far-Right’. Activists celebrate after hearing the outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling on how to define a ‘woman’ Women celebrate the verdict and hug one another. A placard reads: ‘I will not call the man who raped me ‘she’ your honourCampaign group Labour for Trans Rights said: ‘The Supreme Court’s decision is hugely disappointing, and a result of ceaseless lobbying from a well-funded anti-trans network with links to the global far-Right.’We will continue to fight against all attempts to strip trans people of their rights, and will use all levers within the Labour Party to make trans voices heard.’ In their 88-page judgment, Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler said that while the word ‘biological’ does not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, ‘the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman’.The justices added that interpreting biological sex with GRCs would ‘cut across the definition of the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way’.They continued: ‘We can identify no good reason why the legislature should have intended that sex-based rights and protections under the EA 2010 should apply to these complex, heterogenous groupings, rather than to the distinct group of, biological, women and girls, or men and boys, with their shared biology leading to shared disadvantage and discrimination faced by them as a distinct group.’The justices said that transgender people are still protected from discrimination, but that ‘gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and inequality’.They said: ‘This conclusion does not remove or diminish the important protections available under the Equality Act 2010 for trans people with a GRC as we have explained.’To the contrary, this potentially vulnerable group remains protected in the ways we have described.’ The judgement could have far-reaching implications on how sex-based rights apply, including how women-only spaces are allowed to operateTheir ruling also deemed that the certificated sex interpretation would have ‘rendered meaningless’ a section of the 2010 Equalities Act dealing with protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.This interpretation would mean ‘a trans woman (a biological male) with a GRC (so legally female) who remains sexually oriented to other females would become a same-sex attracted female, in other words, a lesbian’ and would lead to an ‘inevitable loss of autonomy and dignity for lesbians’ as well as impacting lesbian clubs and associations.The judgment continues: ‘Read fairly, references to sex in this provision can only mean biological sex. People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate.’A Government spokesman said: ‘We have always supported the protection of single sex spaces based on biological sex.’This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.’Single sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.’ The Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 is a piece of legislation intended to increase the proportion of women on public boards in Scotland.In 2022, FWS successfully challenged the original act over its inclusion of trans women in its definition of women. Maya Forstater, chief executive of human rights charity Sex Matters which intervened in the case, also said she is ‘delighted’ by the outcome The Court of Session ruled that changing the definition of a woman in the act was unlawful, as it dealt with matters falling outside the Scottish Parliament’s legal competence.Following the challenge, the Scottish Government dropped the definition from the act and issued revised statutory guidance – essentially, advice on how to comply with the law.This stated that under the 2018 Act the definition of a woman was the same as that set out in the Equality Act 2010, and also that a person with a GRC recognising their gender as female had the sex of a woman.FWS challenged this revised guidance on the grounds sex under the Equality Act referred to its biological meaning and said the Government was overstepping its powers by effectively redefining the meaning of ‘woman’.However, their challenge was rejected by the Court of Session’s Outer House on December 13, 2022.The Inner House upheld that decision on November 1, 2023 – but did grant FWS permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.The appeal at the Supreme Court before Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Rose and Lady Simler was heard last November and, after the two-day hearing, the judges said they would ‘take time to consider very carefully’ before issuing the judgment on April 16.During the hearing, Aidan O’Neill KC, for FWS, told justices the Scottish ministers’ position that sex, man and woman in the Equality Act refer to ‘certificated sex’- as the sex on a person’s birth certificate which could be amended by a GRC – is ‘just wrong and should be rejected by the court’.But Ruth Crawford KC, for the Scottish Government, said a person who becomes a woman ‘in consequence of a GRC’ is entitled to those protections ‘just as much as others enjoy those protections who are recorded as a woman at birth’.She also said the ‘inevitable conclusion’ of the FWS challenge is that trans women with GRCs would ‘remain men until death for the purposes of the Equality Act’.The court was also told that since the Gender Recognition Act was passed in 2004, 8,464 people in the UK had obtained a GRC.When the group’s legal argument was published ahead of the appeal last year, FWS director Trina Budge said: ‘Not tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise of 50 per cent men, and 50 per cent men with certificates, yet still lawfully meet the targets for female representation.’However, the ramifications of this case are much more far-reaching and all sex-based rights protected by the Equality Act are at risk.’The stakes are high and the court’s decision will have consequences for everyday single-sex services such as toilets and hospital wards.’It will determine whether a pregnant woman with a GRC is entitled to maternity leave, what it means to be same-sex attracted, and whether a man with a GRC’s entitlement to join a group of lesbians takes priority over their right to freely associate with only women.’Trans rights are protected under the separate category of gender reassignment but to fully guarantee women’s rights it is increasingly clear that a consistent, biological and factual understanding of sex is the only workable solution.’
Keep Reading
