Episode
Women and gender: Supreme Court ruling, one year on
- Podcast
- Academy of Ideas
- Published
- Mar 30, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 4478
- Processing state
not_requested
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/academy-of-ideas-740460/episodes/women-and-gender-supreme-court-ruling-one-year-on/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/academy-of-ideas-740460/women-and-gender-supreme-court-ruling-one-year-on.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
This debate was part of Battle of Ideas North on 7 March 2026 in Manchester. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTIONThe Supreme Court judgement in April 2025, in the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, was seen as a ‘landmark ruling’ in clarifying the definition of a woman as based on biological sex at birth. The hope was that by clarifying the law, women’s rights, including single-sex spaces, would be protected and, more broadly, gender ideology would wither on the vine. Yet, almost a year on, many institutions have failed to stand by the definition of ‘woman’ set out in the ruling, instead promoting ‘trans-inclusive culture’. They have ignored the need to provide single-sex spaces for women, and retain policies that fuel discrimination against gender-critical staff, volunteers and visitors. Is this surprising when the UK government itself seems reluctant to fully pursue implementation of the ruling? Having been in possession for months of clear recommendations from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Bridget Phillipson, the women and equalities secretary, has still to publish guidance on single-sex spaces. Similarly, the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, has been criticised for her weak protection of women’s sport. Her stance focuses on ‘including everybody’ and continues to suggest that the issue of trans athletes competing alongside biological women is not clear cut. The Scottish government has been similarly tardy in implementing the ruling, even though the judgement was specifically against it. What’s more, public-sector institutions, along with charities, NGOs and trade unions, seem reluctant to accept biological sex as real, and insist on an ideological commitment to trans-inclusive policies, at the expense of women. Many schools and teachers openly…