Gender Identity Ideology
Historic Judgment in the UK on the Legal Meaning of 'Woman'
Watch the judgment by the UK Supreme Court handed down on Wednesday 16 April, 2025. See link below.
For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent)
“In this appeal, the Appellant challenges the lawfulness of statutory guidance issued by the Respondent, which has the effect that a GRC recognising that a person’s gender is female brings them within the EA 2010 definition of a “woman”.
The Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 is an Act of the Scottish Parliament (“ASP 2018”). It sets targets for increasing the proportion of women on public boards. The original ASP 2018 definition of a “woman” included people: (i) with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment; (ii) living as a woman; and (iii) proposing to undergo / undergoing / who have undergone a gender reassignment process. In a 2022 legal challenge brought by the Appellant (“FWS1”), the Inner House found that this statutory definition was unlawful, as it dealt with matters that fall outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Following FWS, the Respondent issued new statutory guidance. This is the guidance currently under challenge. It states that, under the ASP 2018, the definition of “woman” was the same as under the EA 2010. It also stated that a person with a GRC recognising that their gender is female is considered a woman under the ASP 2018.
The Appellant challenged the lawfulness of the Respondent’s statutory guidance in the Outer House. On 13 December 2022, the Outer House dismissed the Appellant’s petition.
The Appellant appealed. On 1 November 2023, the Inner House upheld the decision of the Outer House and dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.
The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.
The issue is: Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?”.
Commentary by UK experts Helen Joyce and Michael Foran
Commentary by The Lesbian Project in the UK
Read commentary by Julie Bindel and Kathleen Stock’s The Lesbian Project at this link.
'Gender Medicine' in Australia
CoAL is concerned that gender ideology has become firmly embedded in Australian legislation and medical practice. Our concerns are for lesbians and other gender confused young people who are being subjected to a new form of ‘gay conversion’ that is anti lesbian and anti woman. It causes them to enter into a medicalised life of pain and possible death from the iatrogenic (illness caused by medical examination or treatment) effects of dangerous chemical and surgical experiments on their bodies and minds.
Despite our concerns being widely shared across the nation, a general media blackout is being imposed (notable exceptions are The Australian and Gender Critical News, an online Substack newsletter written by a journalist who used to work on The Australian). Most Australian media have caved in to repressive media reporting standards strongly influencd by well-funded transgender activist organisations. ‘Gender medicine’ is practised in publicly-funded hospital-based clinics in all states in an experimental way–without a reliable evidence base, without reporting of outcomes according to medico-scientific standards, without transparency and with minimum safeguarding of minors. It is also rapidly devolving to private practices in GP, psychiatric and endocrinology clinics. Minimal information is publicly available about ‘gender medicine’ practices, unless authorities are pressed by Freedom of Information (FoI) applications sought from state authorities by individual interested parties.
A recent judgement by Justice Strum in the Family Court was refreshingly child-focused and resistant to gender identity ideology, when he ruled that ‘”At this stage in the child’s life, all options should be left open, without any unacceptable risk of harm to the child”. His judgment has been reported globally as a marked exxception to Australia’s closed shop of ‘affirmation’ at all cost, including damage to their future health, reproductive function and expression of sexuality,
If you wish to protest, a list of publicly funded ‘gender clinics’ in Australi can be found in Amos (2024).
References:
ACON Exposed. How ACON influences your workplace (and the Australian media).
Amos, A. (2024), ‘Rapidly expanding gender-affirming care based on consensus instead of evidence justifies rigorous governance and transparency’, Australasian Psychiatry, 32(4), https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562241249579.
Dudley, Ellie (2025), ‘Judge lashes child gender-medicine experts,’ The Australian, 9 April.
Dudley, Ellie (2025),’Hospital silent on gender care policy after judge,’ The Australian, 10 April.
Bernard Lane, GenderCritical News.Media
WHO Guidelines on the Health of Trans and Gender Diverse People
Below is a copy of a submission sent from an Australian coalition, in which CoAL is a signatory, to the Guideline Development Group (GDG) for WHO Guidelines on the Health of Trans and Gender. We are strongly protesting that:
(1) WHO has given poor attention to the diversity, balance, and expertise necessary for a GDG considering such a contentious topic and
(2) WHO has not followed its own standard procedures in establishing and selecting members for a GDG.
In short, the announced GDG is heavily biased towards individuals and groups who work in and advocate for so-called ‘gender affirming care’ and promote gender identity ideology.
Furthermore, the WHO has pursued this path despite two previous letters of protest that we submitted earlier this year.
Signatories to the submission are:
AAWAA (Affiliation of Australian Women’s Action Alliances)
AF4WR (Australian Feminists for Women’s Rights)
CoAL (Coalition of Activist Lesbians)
WRNA (Women’s Rights Network Australia)
See AF4WR ‘Sex-and-gender-identity-checking-the-facts’ (link to be provided).