We don’t need the Supreme Court to define a ‘woman’

In a scenario straight out of Monty Python, learned judges in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will today start solemnly debating what a ‘woman’ is. Yes, really. After a decade of misogynistic sophistry, the most elemental fact of human existence is now in doubt and has been handed to the highest court to determine.

But if they’re confused about what a woman is, you say, why don’t they just consult a school textbook on human biology? Or perhaps ask a representative sample of women. A female human surely is defined by her birth sex. But no – in our crazy, looking-glass world of identity politics, there is, it appears, no fixed legal definition of womanhood. Over two days of hearings, five judges, led inevitably by a man, Lord Reed of Allermuir, will try to find one.

How did we get here? How could this ludicrous debate ever have happened? Well, the confusion dates essentially from the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, which allowed transgender people with a gender recognition certificate to change the sex on their birth certificate.