The supreme court carefully ringfenced protections for women. That's all we wanted

Last week's ruling clarified the legal safeguards of the Equality Act. However, it was a travesty that the battle needed to be fought at all

- Sonia Sodha

Middle-aged women are expected to fade into the background, to be apologetic for their existence, to quietly accept their lot. They're not supposed to stick up for themselves, to enforce their boundaries, to say no. As a woman, these societal expectations have been drummed into me from day one. But still. The swell of anger and disgust that rose in response to the supreme court judgment last week that made clear women's rights are not for dismantling - rights already won, that were supposed to be ours all along has taken my breath away.

I was in court last Wednesday to hear Lord Hodge confirm that the Equality Act's legal protections that were always intended for women are, indeed, reserved for women. He reiterated that trans people continue to have the same robust legal protections against discrimination and harassment as any other protected group, something I've always emphasised in my own writing. But men who identify as female whether or not they have a legal certificate are not to be treated as though female for the purposes of equalities law.

This is a hugely consequential clarification because for the past 10 years lobby groups such as Stonewall have misrepresented the law, telling public sector organisations, charities and companies that they must treat trans women as women.

Now the supreme court has made it clear: female-only services, spaces and sports cannot admit males, however they identify. Workplaces and schools must offer single-sex facilities; service providers do not always have to, though it may be unlawful sex discrimination for them not to do so.