Feminism Against LGBTQ Equality

Feminist policy wants a closed category for preferences and an open category for self-identification. It cannot have both.

Anti-discrimination law protects a person. A quota, special programme, or separate service first classifies people and then gives one category an advantage. When sex and gender identity point in different directions, the state must decide who counts as a woman for that advantage.

The UK Supreme Court chose sex

For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers, [2025] UKSC 16 arose from a target for women’s representation on Scottish public boards. Government guidance counted a transgender woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate as a woman.

The UK Supreme Court held that “sex”, “woman”, and “man” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. A transgender woman does not count in a female sex quota under the Act, even with a certificate. A transgender man remains female for those provisions.

Transgender people still have legal protection. The Equality Act separately prohibits discrimination and harassment connected with gender reassignment. The Court split the regimes: sex controls the sex-based measure; transition receives a separate anti-discrimination protection.

That is the conflict. Recognition of identity does not grant access to an advantage reserved for another legal category.

Schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010 permits separate and single-sex services and, in specified cases, different treatment connected with gender reassignment. It is not a blanket licence to exclude transgender people from every service. Providers must satisfy the statutory conditions and proportionality requirements.

EU law protects transition and counts sex

The Court of Justice held in P v S and Cornwall County Council, C-13/94 that dismissal for a reason arising from gender reassignment violated equal treatment. The rule protects an individual from a specific adverse act.

Directive (EU) 2022/2381 uses a different mechanism. Covered listed companies must pursue at least 40 percent of non-executive director positions, or 33 percent of all director positions, for the underrepresented sex. An equally qualified candidate of that sex may receive priority.

The directive does not create one EU rule for counting transgender directors. National law must settle it. One policy prohibits harm to a person. The other changes selection to alter a group result. Calling both “equality” does not make them the same.

Canada and Australia name the categories separately

Canada’s Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. The Employment Equity Act separately lists women as one of four designated groups for positive measures. An employer counting representation still needs a boundary for “women”.

Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act 1984 separately prohibits gender-identity discrimination and permits special measures for men and women, people with different gender identities, and other groups. The drafting at least admits that sex and identity are not the same axis.

A particular women’s programme must still state its test: sex, legal documents, identity, pregnancy, experience of violence, or demonstrated need.

Russia removed the dispute by removing recognition

Federal Law No. 386-FZ of 24 July 2023 restricted legal and medical sex transition. Article 45.1 of Federal Law No. 323-FZ prohibits interventions and medicines aimed at changing sex, apart from specified treatment of congenital, genetic, and endocrine conditions in children.

The state made female quotas easier to count by refusing most new legal transitions. Men received no universal right. Transgender people lost recognition. Female-specific preferences remained closed. That is administrative simplicity, not equality.

Reproductive choice shows the same asymmetry

Article 56 of Federal Law No. 323-FZ gives the woman the decision whether to continue a pregnancy. A man cannot veto an abortion. If a child is born, Article 80 of the Family Code requires both parents to support the child.

Bodily autonomy explains why the pregnant woman controls the medical decision. It does not make the later allocation of choice and duty symmetrical. The woman decides whether pregnancy becomes parenthood. The man receives no comparable point at which he may decline the parental project.

This is not an argument for a male veto over pregnancy. It is an argument against calling a system equal when one person holds the final choice and two people acquire the duty.

Tie the rule to the fact

Pregnancy requires pregnancy rules. Medicine requires relevant anatomy and medical history. Changing rooms and intimate care require privacy rules. Physical sport requires safety and competitive criteria.

Ordinary employment, contracts, education, housing, and public services require a common individual standard. Family support should follow actual caregiving. Targeted aid should follow income, disability, violence, and demonstrated harm.

When a sex quota remains, publish the counting rule and explain why sex is necessary. Remove the group preference where a universal right is enough. Then the state does not need to erase a person to preserve a quota or erase the quota to recognise an identity.