Crucial legal battle over the definition of a woman is one for our bizarre times - Euan McColm

It’s a seemingly simple question but it terrifies even the most experienced politicians.

Ask a cabinet secretary “what is a woman?” and he or she will break out in a sweat and then tie themselves in linguistic knots. Meanwhile, anyone with the audacity to pose the question in the first place may expect to be dismissed as a bigot by those who adhere to the creed that “trans women are women”.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, five judges at the Supreme Court in London will attempt to settle the matter, once and for all.

Campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) has asked the court to provide a definitive answer to the question: “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?”

Along with others, FWS believes that biological sex is central to the protections provided under existing legislation. How, campaigners ask, can single-sex spaces - such as rape crisis centres, women’s refuges, and changing rooms - be maintained if sex can be “changed” by the simple issuing of a piece of paper?

This week’s hearings in London mark the latest stage in a battle that may seem utterly bizarre to many for whom a woman is an adult human female.

But we live in utterly bizarre times and so what was once regarded as a simple statement of fact is now characterised by some as an act of aggression, as a “gotcha” designed only to humiliate those who describe themselves as trans.

When the Scottish Government, under the leadership of former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, attempted two years ago to change the Gender Recognition Act to allow trans people to self-identify into the legally-recognised sex of their choosing, ministers were adamant there would be absolutely no impact on those born female. Sturgeon dismissed those with the audacity to raise concerns as out of touch and prejudiced, while then social justice secretary Shona Robison insisted reform of the GRA would make no difference to biological women.

During a debate on the matter at Holyrood in December 2022, Robison told MSPs “the bill does not change public policy around the provision of single-sex spaces and services” adding she had always been clear that all organisations affected had to take account of the UK-wide Equality Act to “ensure that everyone’s rights are protected”.

The Scottish Government - in a submission to the Supreme Court - had now made either a fool or a liar of the former minister.

Despite Robison’s insistence two years ago that reform of the GRA would have no impact on existing equality legislation, lawyers acting on behalf of ministers now say the definition of the word woman includes anyone issued with a full GRC in the acquired gender of female”.

Regardless of what Sturgeon, Robison and many other senior MSPs previously stated, the Government’s position is now that reform of the GRA would have impacted on single sex spaces, after all. And that such a consequence would have been just fine.

In thrall to gender ideology, Nicola Sturgeon saw the introduction of self-ID as profoundly important but she not only failed to present a coherent argument for her position, she badly misjudged public opinion on the matter.

Most people don’t care how someone wishes to be known or how they wish to dress but that live-and-let-live approach does not, for the majority, stretch to the belief that those born male should be permitted into spaces from which men are excluded for very good reasons.

I suspect First Minister John Swinney would very much like this matter to go away. Reform of the GRA was Sturgeon’s obsession. And that didn’t end well for her.

Shortly after then Scottish Secretary Alister Jack blocked Holyrood’s gender reforms on the grounds that they would negatively impact on the Equality Act, Sturgeon stepped down as FM.

Since then, the Scottish Government has gone rather cold on the matter.

If the Supreme Court rules that, no, a gender recognition certificate does not mean that someone’s sex changes in the eyes of the law then Swinney has a get out of jail free card. He can walk away from this issue and concentrate on other matters.

If, on the other hand, the judges side with the Scottish Government, the First Minister will come under renewed pressure from some colleagues and battalions of trans-rights activists to push forward with new legislation.

Earlier this year, Swinney stated his belief that there are only two genders. This attempt to clear things up was rather undermined by the fact that, when he was deputy FM under Sturgeon, he was fully signed up to reform of the GRA.

I can’t be alone in thinking it weird that the Scottish Government is about to argue in the Supreme Court in favour of a position that the First Minister does not appear to hold.

Those in favour of reforming the Gender Recognition Act wish us to see those who oppose it as cynical participants in a “culture war”, motivated by prejudice rather than genuine concern about the implications of allowing self-ID.

But the vast majority of voters aren’t buying that story.

Rather, as polls show, most people think single-sex spaces should be maintained for those born female.

If the Supreme Court rules that a man can become a woman because he declares it to be so - and vice versa - then the sex-based protections provided by the Equality Act will become meaningless.

After all, how does one protect - or even begin to consider - the rights of women if to be a woman is nothing more than a feeling?