What a ‘woman’ is or is not has been defined ….so what? Why this ruling is a defeat for all Part 2

I said before I am not versed in the intricacies of understanding the judicial system in the UK, and by no means do I want to comment on how the ruling came about following such a complex and multifaceted case.

Mine is a call to consider this ruling a starting point rather than a conclusion, unlike the media's portrayal. If the cases in question were straightforward, they would likely not have reached this point, and despite the unanimous decision, this doesn't diminish its complexity.

It comes down to what the women who brought this to court are trying to protect or what they fear. I'll exclude religious fervour or politically motivated prejudice, more from hope than conviction, as I'd expect the judiciary system would have detected and rejected such manipulation.

The fear, which feels very legitimate, is primarily about the potential loss of rights and benefits women have fought hard to secure over decades—rights that, ironically, needed legal codification when they should have been self-evident. No wonder the extent of the celebrations.

Yet, clinging to employment quotas and traditional changing rooms based on biological sex isn't truly a victory. What it reveals is the disconnect between government policies, cultural evolution, and the judicial system.

I believe politics and legislation should remain independent, yet they must inform each other since legislative consequences inevitably affect organizations and individuals throughout society.

This ruling, like many others, should include a caveat: the government must implement policies driving cultural change from all directions to avoid finding itself merely responding to legislators. These policies should actively prepare to eliminate the need for protecting "woman" as a separate vulnerable category, working toward meaningful integration and eventually removing such laws for universal benefit.

Protecting vulnerable populations reflects an open society—something all nations should aspire to—until this protection becomes a barrier.

We all need protection in various ways; we all have vulnerabilities.

What long-term plan exists to make such rulings obsolete? What strategy addresses sexism against women, men, and all the wonderful variations in-between until these laws become historical curiosities our descendants view with compassionate disbelief?

Who's examining this legislation's broader societal impact? Is anyone in authority investigating possible links between declining male mental health, the alarming rise of incel communities, widespread misogyny and this persistent rhetoric about women requiring special protection and care—a binary approach that effectively excludes both men and transgender/transsexual individuals?

Has anyone considered why violence persists in single-sex prisons—institutions housing humans caught in the system? Prisons are inherently dangerous environments. Surely, we can't attribute violence entirely to the presence of a few transgender individuals who represent a tiny minority and often find themselves caught between a body that doesn't align with their identity and rejection from the gender they identify with which makes them even more vulnerable than the' factory-standard' woman or man.

So this is why this ruling should come with a bucket full of warnings and caveats. Let it be the starting point for a comprehensive list of government, institutional, and authoritative actions and policies that will dismantle this very ruling as soon as possible, focusing on what truly matters—inclusion rather than division.

I was in Waterloo station last Friday and popped in for a well-deserved comfort break. Scrawled on the door was a graffiti masterpiece: "A transsexual peed here and nobody died." I burst out laughing—turns out regardless of what factory-installed plumbing we arrive with, we're all just walking water balloons with deadlines. Nature's call is the great equaliser; we may disagree on politics, but we can all agree that when you gotta go, you gotta go.