Supreme Court's ruling is a call for clarity, not conflict

As a society, we must often walk a delicate tightrope. Life isn't a zero-sum game, but it can often feel like it is: as George Bernard Shaw pithily remarked, “a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul”.

- Jonathan Arnott

And so, the most recent ethical dilemma we should enter into is the UK Supreme Court ruling, which unanimously declared that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex - sex as observed at birth - rather than gender identity or legal sex as recognised by a gender recognition certificate.

Two pieces of legislation clashed; one interpretation or the other was correct in law. Being correct in law, and correct morally, are two different things of course. As a community, we must navigate this ruling with empathy, clarity, and an understanding that perceived rights may sometimes come into conflict with each other. Kindness, after all, is a two-way street.

The ruling clarifies that “woman” under the Equality Act means a biological woman, ensuring coherence in provisions like single-sex spaces, women's sports, and pregnancy-related protections. Domestic violence refuges, changing rooms, and competitive sports can now operate with greater legal certainty, safeguarding privacy and fairness where biological differences matter. Yet, the court was clear: transgender individuals remain protected against discrimination under the act's gender reassignment provisions. It’s no zero-sum game, but a delicate tightrope.