Gender and the Law: The Vitruvian Woman on Trial

The Supreme Court’s Gender Debate: Can We Redefine Biological Reality?

Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man stands as a testament to Renaissance ideals – a masterpiece that melds art, science, and philosophy. Within its elegant lines, we see humanity perfectly balanced between the divine circle and the earthly square, a microcosm of the universe itself. This vision, grounded in both philosophical reflection and scientific observation, placed humans as integral, rational beings within the cosmic order.

Yet today, in a world increasingly unmoored from such certainties, we find ourselves adrift in a sea of subjective realities. The once-clear lines of biology and identity blur into a haze of individual perception. No longer do we simply state, “I think, therefore I am.” Instead, a new mantra emerges: “I am whatever I think I am.” This shift raises a profound question: Must society – and more pressingly, our laws – bend to accommodate every subjective fantasy, regardless of biological fact?

This is no mere philosophical musing. it is now a pressing legal issue. As we speak, the highest court in the UK prepares to grapple with a question that would never have baffled Leonardo and his contemporaries: “What is a woman?” In the upcoming Supreme Court case in the UK, Lord Reed and his panel of judges are set to decide on what constitutes a woman under the law, the very nature of identity and reality will be scrutinised.

The modern Vitruvian Woman, a symbol of biological and philosophical harmony, is now poised to be weighed, measured, and—perhaps—found not to be an Adult Human Female after all, but a man with a certificate declaring his womanhood. In this era, where identity can be reshaped by legal documents rather than biological reality, the traditional understanding of womanhood risks being redefined by a piece of paper. What was once grounded in nature is now subject to the shifting sands of subjective claims, forcing society to question where the line between fact and fantasy should be drawn.

As we watch this legal pantomime unfold, one can’t help but wonder: how did we arrive at this juncture? How have we strayed so far from the harmonious vision of the Vitruvian Man, where human identity was inextricably linked to observable reality? And more importantly, what are the consequences of divorcing our laws – and by extension, our society – from the bedrock of biological fact?

For centuries, women have waged a relentless battle against oppression and inequality. Their struggle for suffrage and basic rights has been a long, arduous journey, marked by countless sacrifices and hard-won victories. From the right to vote to equal pay legislation, from protection against discrimination to representation in public office, each step forward has been earned through the blood, sweat, and tears of generations of women.

Yet now, just as the fruits of this labour seemed within reach, a new threat looms on the horizon – one that could unravel the very fabric of women’s rights. In a twist of irony that would make even the most cynical suffragette weep, men can now, through the mere acquisition of a legal certificate, lay claim to womanhood itself. This isn’t just moving the goalposts; it’s demolishing the entire playing field.

Consider the implications: spaces once reserved for women – safe havens hard-fought and desperately needed – now stand open to any man who declares himself a woman. Women’s sports, long a bastion of fair competition and a source of pride and accomplishment for female athletes, face the prospect of being dominated by individuals with inherent biological advantages. Even the very definition of ‘woman’ in law – a definition that underpins countless protective measures and equality initiatives – is now up for debate.

This is not progress. This is not equality. This is the systematic erosion of women’s rights under the guise of inclusivity. It’s a sleight of hand so audacious, so breathtakingly cynical, that one almost has to admire its sheer gall. Almost.

The Vitruvian Woman?

In November, the UK’s Supreme Court will convene to address the definition of “woman” under the Equality Act. The case, brought forward by the group For Women Scotland, challenges whether someone who is biologically male can legally be considered female for the purposes of gender quotas on public boards. The Scottish government initially expanded the definition of “woman” to include anyone “living as a woman” with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). But For Women Scotland argues that this redefinition undermines biological realities and sex-based rights.

It’s the next chapter in a saga that began when For Women Scotland, a campaign group, challenged the Scottish government over a new law aimed at increasing the number of women on public boards. The legislation included a provision that anyone “living as a woman” would be eligible, which sparked controversy. Could the mere claim of “living as a woman” override biological sex in such legal matters?

In December 2022, Lady Haldane ruled in favour of a more inclusive definition, stating that “sex is not limited to biological or birth sex,” and can include someone who has legally changed their gender. Now, the Supreme Court will have to decide: Does the legal definition of woman include transwomen, and if so, what are the broader implications for law, society, and women’s rights?

This question has now been put to our highest court in the Land the Supreme Court. Lord Reed of Allermuir, at the ripe age of 68, leads this merry band of judicial philosophers, untroubled by the Herculean task before him what constitutes a “woman” under the Equality Act.

You can almost imagine him squinting at a diagram of the human form as if it were some alien artefact, rather than the very vessel of our existence that has carried humanity through millennia the same form that birthed him…a biological fact he must now wonder how.

For in this brave new world, we’re asked to believe that biological reality is merely a social construct, that chromosomes are a matter of personal choice, and that your aunt might just be your uncle if she (or he?) decides so on a given Tuesday. Again its a case of “I am whatever I think I am, reality be damned.”

Now, the Supreme Court will consider this critical question: Is being a woman a biological reality, or can it be redefined by personal identity? The ruling could have far-reaching implications, not just for public boards in Scotland but for society’s understanding of gender and legal protections across the UK.

The Legal Dilemma: Do We Have to Play Along?

When they can sell you the notion that ‘your nan is a man,’ the very fabric of reality unravels, and we’re left in a dystopia where:
‘War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.'” ― George Orwell
We are left silent, accused of ‘Thoughtcrime’ for uttering the truth.

The heart of this debate is not just a legal question but a societal one: Do we have to play along with someone’s personal identity claims, even when they contradict biological reality?

We must ask ourselves: Is this the legacy we want to leave for our daughters and granddaughters? A world where the hard-won rights of women can be claimed by anyone who simply declares themselves female? Where biological reality is dismissed as inconvenient, and women are once again silenced and sidelined?

The time has come to stand firm. To say enough is enough. To recognise that while compassion and inclusivity are noble goals, they cannot come at the expense of half the world’s population. Women’s rights are not a costume to be donned at will, nor are they a club open to all who fancy joining. They are the result of centuries of struggle, of countless women who dared to demand better, who refused to be silenced or sidelined.

As we face this new challenge, we must channel the spirit of those who came before us. We must be as relentless in defending women’s rights as our foremothers were in securing them. For if we fail in this, if we allow the very concept of ‘woman’ to be diluted to the point of meaninglessness, then all those years of struggle, all those hard-won victories, will have been for naught.

The fight for women’s rights is far from over. Indeed, it may have only just begun.

Advocates for “sex-based rights” argue that without clear legal recognition of biological sex, women’s rights are in jeopardy. Maya Forstater, CEO of Sex Matters, emphasises that laws should reflect the material reality of being male or female, not subjective identity claims. She warns that muddying this distinction could erode privacy, dignity, and fairness for women in areas like sports, healthcare, and single-sex spaces.

On the other side of the debate, trans rights activists argue that excluding trans women from legal recognition could deprive them of vital protections, such as equal pay, access to services, and safeguards against discrimination. They point to the Equal Pay Act of 1970, which mandates equal pay for equal work, as a potential casualty if trans women are not recognized as “women” under the law.

However, this argument lacks substance, as the Equal Pay Act applies equally to all, regardless of sex or gender identity. A more practical approach might be to focus on strengthening employment laws to enforce non-discriminatory practices across the workforce, while limiting the collection of sex data to medical purposes where it’s most relevant therefore having true equality in the workplace.

The question before the court is whether gender identity, as expressed by those with a GRC, should carry the same weight in law as biological sex. But the implications of this decision go beyond mere legalities. If the court rules that gender identity can redefine biological sex, it could fundamentally alter the legal framework that has underpinned sex-based rights for decades.

CEO of Sex Matters, Maya Forstater, said the implications of the case were “much wider than the make-up of public boards in Scotland”.

She added: “It is increasingly clear that unless there is clear recognition in law that being male or female is a material reality, and that sex-based rights are protected, women’s rights will continue to be whittled away and obscured by a cloud of uncertainty.

“We will be calling on the Supreme Court to focus on the protections for universal human rights that are at stake, and to recognise that while everyone has the right to express themselves, dress how they please and call themselves what they want, this does not override the right of women to privacy, dignity, fairness and autonomy.

“Protecting everyone’s rights requires laws and words that reflect reality.”

Scottish Lesbians said lesbians were particularly impacted by the court’s decision.

Jenny Willmott, the director and co-founder of Scottish Lesbians said: “Like other minority groups, we deserve our own spaces in which we can socialise, discuss issues which impact us as lesbians, and support each other.

“Our needs go beyond safety and privacy; our whole freedom of association depends on being able to keep our spaces single-sex.

“The current legal situation means that our sexual orientation has effectively ceased to be protected under the Equality Act 2010”.

A spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said: “We have been granted permission to intervene in the Supreme Court appeal of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers. 

The Broader Context: Science vs. Subjectivity

For millennia, humanity has recognised the biological distinction between men and women. Science has illuminated the biological realities of male and female chromosomes, XX and XY, as immutable markers of sex. Yet in this modern era, we are asked to question even these facts.

Those who argue that “a woman is whoever claims to be one” disregard the biological underpinnings that have defined womanhood for centuries. It’s no longer a question of biology but of belief. The challenge for the courts, and indeed for society at large, is whether legal systems should enshrine this subjectivity into law.

This debate goes far beyond public board quotas or bathroom signs—it’s about the core of reality itself and how we, as a society, choose to define it. Are we willing to abandon millennia of human understanding and the undeniable truths of biology in favour of subjective feelings? And if we do, where does it stop? What will people choose to identify as next—and why should their feelings hold any less weight than others? Shouldn’t they too have the right to be whatever they wish? These are the questions we face in redefining not just identity, but the very nature of reality, it’s a rabbit hole where all about to Tumble down even those that identify as rabbits.

Lord Reed and his fellow justices find themselves at a legal and philosophical crossroads. Their task is not to rewrite social policy but to interpret the law really matter’s. The case forces us to grapple with uncomfortable questions: What is real? What is subjective? And must we, as a society, be bound by someone else’s perception of themselves, even when it conflicts with observable facts?

Reality, Law, and Society’s Future

This debate speaks to a deeper societal issue: Are we losing touch with reality in the pursuit of inclusivity?

Even in saying that amidst this chaos, we must not lose sight of the human element. There are individuals who genuinely struggle with their gender identity, who feel a profound disconnect between their inner selves and their physical bodies. Their pain is real, their struggles genuine. But does validating their feelings require us to upend the entire concept of biological sex?

The danger comes in their quest to be inclusive, to put feelings before facts and biological reality in doing so these judicial contortionists are in danger of erasing the very concept of womanhood they claim to champion. They are reducing the rich, complex experience of being a woman to a mere feeling, a fleeting identity that can be donned or discarded at will. This is not equality. This is not justice. This is the wholesale destruction of categories that have shaped human society, biology, and culture since time immemorial.

And let’s not forget the economic angle in this absurd drama. While we debate the metaphysics of gender, a booming industry grows fat on human misery. The “sex reassignment” market – a ghoulish euphemism if ever there was one – is projected to reach $6.26 billion by 2030. One must ask: cui bono? Who profits from this confusion, this commodification of the human body?

It’s the first step in the commodification of humans. This is gateway legislation that opens up a world of change. If we acquiesce to this madness, we risk not just our sanity, but the very foundations of a society built on reason and observable reality. In a world without truth, without objective reality, what hope is there for justice, for progress, for the betterment of the human condition?” Are we now to reject the evidence of our very chromosomes, the fundamental building blocks of our biology?

Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man symbolised the balance between the human form and the universe—a balance rooted in nature, in the observable. As society increasingly embraces subjective identity claims over biological truths, we must ask ourselves: Can we continue to square the circle? Or are we doomed to unravel the very foundations of what it means to be human in the name of progress?

Five judges in a courtroom prepare to rule on the nature of reality. The stakes are high, not just for the legal definitions of sex and gender, but for the reality of biology. May reason prevail, lest we all become unwitting actors in a theatre of the absurd, where the script is written by those who would have us believe that 2+2=5, if only we wish hard enough.

And in that world, dear reader, we’re all mad here.

Oh and yes, I know…I’m cancelled…

Paul Knaggs