Why wasn't this in our news?

In a news feed yesterday the ruling I was waiting to see came through almost as soon as it was announced. It is a legal ruling of huge significance for women everywhere.  It was not even mentioned here. 

I listened to the international news service last night and, even with an election coming up, it should have been mentioned. It was not mentioned. I have read this morning's paper. There is still no mention of it. It has not rated as much as a paragraph. 

What happened? The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom issued a ruling that the terms "woman" and "sex" in their Equality Act refer only to biological women and biological sex. It was a unanimous decision in a judgment which runs to more than eighty pages. 

They said the legal definition of a woman does not include transgender women who have gender recognition certificates. This will likely have huge ramifications for access to services intended for women only. 

Whether you think the ruling is right or wrong is entirely up to you but the issue has now been addressed. The judges have said, the definition relates to "the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words" and it "corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman." I have no doubt that somewhere in the judgment recognition is made of the genetic variations which can occur but the words "plain and unambiguous" still appear. The ruling also makes it clear that the privacy, safety and dignity of transgender people is still protected under Equality Act.

Here the case of Tickle v Giggle brought about an opposite ruling in the Federal Court. There the judge ruled that "sex is changeable". The appeal in that case has not yet been heard. We are not required to follow or even consider the rulings of the court of any other country but I have no doubt the matter will come up. 

The case was brought by a group called "For Women Scotland". As I understand it much of the money used to fund the case was donated by JK Rowling of Harry Potter fame. I imagine those individuals and groups which have criticised her stance on this issue will be even more against her now. I have no doubt at all they will now begin a campaign to have the law changed.  That is the way the world works.