The UK Court Ruling Shutting Down Trans Madness Is a Welcome Respite

By John Zmirak

THE STREAM

April 17, 2025

Imagine if in the Gospel narrative of the Gadarene swine, at some point along their thunderous plummet toward the sea, one of the alpha boars halted. He sniffed the air, looked down at the waves, and gave a thoughtful grunt. Then other pigs around him halted too. They seemed to be listening to him. Would he lead them back up the slope, despite the demons urging them onward down to destruction?

Great Britain’s Supreme Court just halted on its haunches and gave a thoughtful grunt. The Daily Telegraph reports:

Transgender women are not legally women, Britain’s highest court has declared in a landmark ruling hailed as a victory by JK Rowling.

Supreme Court judges unanimously ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not acquired gender.

Wednesday’s judgment was hailed as a victory for common sense by gender-critical campaigners and politicians, with JK Rowling saying it would protect “the rights of women and girls across the UK”.

Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said the ruling meant that the “era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end”.

It followed a years-long legal battle between campaign group For Women Scotland and the Scottish Government over the definition of a woman.

Lord [Patrick] Hodge told the court: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the definition of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”

In its 88-page ruling, the court added that the “concept of sex is binary” under the Equality Act 2010.

It was also in Great Britain that the Cass Report appeared, exposing the false claims that sexually confused teens benefit from puberty blockers and other grotesque, biology-denying interventions. That report largely stopped the chemical and surgical assault on teens’ sexuality in Britain, though it continues in the U.S. — with Colorado lawmakers recently voting to strip custody from parents who won’t “affirm” transgender delusions.

As we reported here, the Vatican just blew a hole in its previously solid opposition to sexual mutilations, allegedly to prevent “trans” people from committing suicide (a discredited claim, but don’t confuse liberal Catholics with the facts). Fake empathy trumps real doctrine, and throws into question the teaching authority of the Catholic Church for any serious believer.

Who can trust a Vatican doctrinal judgment ever again after this? We will simply have to judge every non-infallible Vatican pronouncement (which is 99.99999999999999% of them) purely on its merits. How does that leave us functionally distinguishable from Protestants? Unless, of course, we become good papal Stalinists and accept new teachings that reverse old teachings with the breezy obedience of workers at Orwell’s Ministry of Truth: “Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.” If you outsource your conscience entirely to whatever Aleister Crowley disciple a given pope appoints, then life gets a whole lot simpler.

Will This Win for Sanity Stick?

The UK ruling is a major defeat for the transgender doctrine of demons, which claims that we have up to 47 human “genders” and shift among them at will, like spirits possessing a body. (That is why I prefer to call the political movement that backs this teaching “LGBTQMYNAMEISLEGION.”)

Will this legal ruling, which peels Great Britain away from the juggernaut of support for sexual delusion, force the post-Christian cult of “inclusion” and suicidal empathy to pause and reflect? Will the Muslim voters who increasingly call the shots in Great Britain inform their pale, white puppets that enabling sexual fetishes isn’t sharia-friendly? More likely, such Muslims will continue their customary policy of letting the kuffar (filthy infidels) destroy themselves, confident that they will inherit and Islamicize the country once it passes the point of no return.

Why Reason Alone Can’t Prevail

It’s politically helpful to us in the short term that the Left has tied around its neck the anchor of transgender madness, which defies the obvious biological truths on which every human civilization has been built, which sustain every mammalian species, and extend even into the plant kingdom. If you want to find sexual polymorphism of the kind that the Democratic Party (and now many churches) believe exists in humans, you really have to drill down into the world of the Fungus. Anyone who insists he’s “genderfluid” is basically saying “I’m a mushroom.” It might seem funny to agree with him, but since he’s an image-bearer of God it’s actually sinful. That’s why you can’t use “preferred pronouns,” even if a government (such as Ireland’s) prosecutes you and seizes your bank account.

Reason and science alone, in theory, should collapse any legal or intellectual support for the strange sexual fantasies of the transgenderists. But I fear this won’t happen. Ask yourself why it didn’t already happen. No new scientific discoveries launched the transgender revolution. Nobody looked in a microscope and found 45 extra, undiscovered genders. None of that stopped the psychiatric and medical professions from throwing their weight behind trans ideology as fervidly as they once embraced lobotomies, and cancelling dissenters no matter what their credentials might be.

Reason and evidence cease to matter to people when they threaten to impinge on sexual liberation. (See life beginning at conception, which every biologist knows and every pro-choicer disputes.)

I once wondered here why the people who want eugenic abortions for kids with Down syndrome don’t embrace euthanasia for trans patients, since the same arguments of saving money and avoiding suffering apply much more to the transgender than they do to the unborn:

Why does our society embrace transgender people as victims and heroes, as brave pioneers and fascinating transgressors — while ruthlessly hunting down and wiping out kids with Down syndrome?

It’s not as if people with Down syndrome made the same kind of demands as trans activists do. You don’t see Down syndrome advocates demanding that we abolish IQ tests, dismantle every barrier to Down syndrome acceptance, until people with Down syndrome were piloting airplanes and serving as cabinet members — and labeling those who opposed this as bigots and haters. Keeping a person with Down syndrome healthy is nowhere near as expensive as changing a person’s sex, and fooling his body for decades with artificial hormones.

Down syndrome advocates don’t insist we use special pronouns, reject fundamental truths of biology, or otherwise reengineer our education and society to accommodate them. They’d just like us to stop hunting them down and wiping them out.

And I offered the unsettling answer: While the average citizen might be equally unsettled by either a person with Down syndrome or one with gender dysphoria, there’s one critical difference between them. The former is simply a person who has been born with some physical and intellectual challenges. There’s nothing sexy or kinky about him, he’s simply somewhat disabled. … The transgender person, however, is a sexual transgressor. He’s doing outrageous and kinky things that violate the Natural Law (whatever his culpability). If we condemn or reject his sins, what would that mean for us? For our own sins, the ugly stuff in our past or our Internet history?

Our fallen will, and our attachment to sexual sin, blocks many of us from taking the verdict of reason seriously. We can manage that since we’ve accepted the Darwinian paradigm which claims that all life, including human, is a piece of cosmic happenstance with no trace of a Designer. We’ve trained ourselves to see the existence of the sexes not as some artifact of a loving Maker who has in mind a plan for how we ought to live. Instead, the sexes are just a clumsy, messy means of reproducing the species which happened to confer a greater fitness on some long-ago lower animal, so he survived. We’re no more bound to respect our sexual nature than we’re morally obliged to live as hunter-gatherers, merely because our ancestors did.

We can seek “progress,” “freedom,” and our “authentic” sexual identities — acquired via porn addiction, social contagion, or the groomers who work at the government school. And anyone who criticizes the new, fungal definition of human beings is a “hater” who opposes “diversity” and “inclusion.” So we use the force of the State to punish him, like some medieval heretic. Because what we’re following isn’t reason or science, but a dark new religion which demands blood sacrifice — preferably of children.

John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream and author or coauthor of 14 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. His newest book is No Second Amendment, No First.