Author and anti-trans activist JK Rowling has branded transgender news reader India Willoughby ‘a man’ after the Supreme Court ruled a woman is someone born biologically female.
The Harry Potter author described Ms Willoughby as ‘the gift that keeps on giving’ in an online spat in which she told the broadcaster that she ‘remains a man’.
The writer’s scathing response came after the news reader claimed that the judge who summarised the ruling is neighbours with the author.
It follows the Supreme Court ruling that ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the Equality Act must mean ‘biological sex’, rejecting any alternative interpretations as ‘incoherence and impracticable’.
The ruling means trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) could potentially be excluded from single-sex spaces if ‘proportionate’.
In handing down the court’s judgment, Lord Hodge said he recognised ‘the strength of feeling on both sides’ and cautioned against seeing the judgment as a triumph for one side over another – stressing that the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
Reacting to the ruling, broadcaster and journalist Ms Willoughby, who was Loose Women‘s first transgender co-host, said the decision marked a ‘grim day for Britain’.
The news reader has since taken to X (formerly Twitter) claiming that Judge Hodge is a neighbour of JK Rowling who said the ruling would protect ‘the rights of women and girls across the UK’.
JK Rowling described India Willoughby ‘is the gift that keeps on giving’ in an online spat in which she told the broadcaster that she ‘remains a man’.
Broadcaster and journalist Ms Willoughby, who was Loose Women ‘s first transgender co-host, said the Supreme Court ruling marked a ‘grim day for Britain’
She wrote: ‘Ha. Turns out Judge Hodge is only JK Rowling’s funking neighbour in the same exclusive area of Edinburgh, Merchiston. What a country. Really is the 1950s. #Establishment.’
JK Rowling responded by saying ‘I don’t live in Merciston’ and that she has ‘never met Lord Hodge’.
She added that Ms Willoughby ‘remains the funniest thing in my mentions’ and that she ‘remains a man’.
Ms Willoughby went on to post: ‘Were frumps jealous? I think that’s a big part of this?’
The author replied again and said: ‘”The Supreme Court ruled I’m not a woman because women envy my gorgeousness”.
‘He truly is the gift that keeps on giving.’
The writer also took to social media and said women are ‘waiting to hear the Prime Minister’s views’ on the ruling and made a dig at his previous assertions that ‘trans women are women’.
The Supreme Court ruling has been celebrated by women’s rights activists including author JK Rowling, but its opponents say they fear it could put trans and non-binary people at renewed risk of attacks and discrimination.
Susan Smith (L) and Marion Calder, Directors of For Women Scotland, make a statement outside the Supreme Court following the ruling
Author and anti-trans activist JK Rowling has lashed out at a prominent trans activist doctor and led calls for the Prime Minister to break his silence on social media
Rowling called for Sir Keir Starmer to speak out on the ruling, hitting out at previous remarks he has made in support of the trans community
Rowling has been among the most prominent gender critics to celebrate the ruling, posting photographs of her on ‘TERF VE day’ drinking champagne and smoking a cigar onboard her superyacht.
The judgement marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle between the Scottish government and a women’s group over the definition of a ‘woman’ in Scottish legislation mandating 50 percent female representation on public boards.
The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Equality Act.
Lord Hodge recognised ‘the strength of feeling on both sides’ and cautioned against seeing the judgement as ‘a triumph for one side over another’, stressing that the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
In a post on X, formerly Twitter, the Good Law Project said in a statement: ‘The Supreme Court sided with FWS [For Women Scotland]. But it didn’t hear from a single trans person.
‘This ruling sets a dangerous precedent and erases trans women from protections. It puts trans rights back 20 years. We won’t stop fighting for trans rights.’
In an 88-page ruling, the justices said: ‘The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.’
The decision could have far-reaching implications on how sex-based rights apply, including how women-only spaces are allowed to operate.
Stars of Drag Race UK were amongst prominent members of the LGBT+ community to offer trans people support, with many taking to social media.
Drag queen Tayce posted: ‘UK supreme court is a POS [piece of s***]. My heart goes out to all my trans brothers and sisters eternally but more so today. Nothing or no-one can erase YOU.’
Co-star Bimini Bon-Boulash shared an image stating: ‘Trans women are women’.
And Tia Kofi uploaded a video to Instagram in which they said: ‘We now more than ever must be allies to the trans community.
‘It cannot just be trans people who are expected to raise their voices to fight for their own existence. It must be exhausting to constantly be the ones to fight for your own existence. As allies it is our responsibility to amplify their voices.’
In the judgement, Lord Hodge accepted the trans community are ‘a vulnerable and often harassed minority’ who have a right to protection from discrimination on the basis of their identity in place of their biological sex.
The European Convention on Human Rights is expecting to lay an updated statutory code of practice before Parliament by the summer in response.
Baroness Falkner said the commission evaluates when the law is not followed by organisations and can speak to those bodies, or ‘use enforcement, compliance tools or whatever, we will be continuing to do that’.
The judgement could have far-reaching implications on how sex-based rights apply, including how women-only spaces are allowed to operate
For Women Scotland directors Susan Smith (left) and Marion Calder (right) celebrate the landmark ruling on Wednesday
The outcome is set to have implications across England, Scotland and Wales
Regarding single-sex hospital wards, she said the NHS will ‘have to change’ their 2019 policy, which says that trans people ‘should be accommodated according to their presentation’.
Scottish ministers this morning called for an urgent meeting with the UK government on the ruling’s implications.
It was Scottish legislation that was challenged in the Supreme Court over whether a trans woman should be counted in equality targets for parity for female representation on company boards.
The Scottish Government lost its Supreme Court battle against women’s rights campaign group For Women Scotland when the UK’s highest court ruled the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 ‘refer to a biological woman and biological sex’.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: ‘The Supreme Court judgment has given clarity between two pieces of legislation passed at Westminster and we have accepted this in full.
‘Scottish Ministers have now written to the UK Government to seek an urgent meeting to discuss the implications of the judgment, and the Social Justice Secretary will give a statement to the Scottish Parliament next week on the judgment, subject to Parliamentary approval.
‘Ministers will also meet with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) next week.
‘The Scottish Government acted in good faith in our interpretation of both the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010; and our approach was guided by the published guidance of the EHRC.
‘The Supreme Court judgment explicitly references that this stance was consistent with EHRC advice and we note that that the EHRC are now reviewing their guidance to reflect the ruling.
‘We will continue to engage with the EHRC and other stakeholders and are fully committed to protecting everyone’s rights and ensuring that Scotland remains an inclusive country.’
What does the Supreme Court gender ruling mean?
What did the Supreme Court rule?
The Supreme Court ruled the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
What does it mean for single sex spaces?
The court’s decision will have huge consequences for how single-sex spaces and services operate across the UK, experts said today.
The written Supreme Court judgment gives examples including rape or domestic violence counselling, refuges, rape crisis centres, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms.
The government said the ruling ‘brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs’.
What does it mean for employers?
Employment experts say it will provide companies with greater ‘clarity’ over single sex spaces for their staff.
Lara Brown, senior Research Fellow in the Culture and Identity Unit at Policy Exchange, said a trans woman with a GRC who is excluded from single-sex spaces cannot say she is being discriminated against as a woman.
She explained: ‘This ruling makes it legal for any space that wants to be single sex to exclude biological men.’
Could employers still be at risk of discrimination?
The Supreme Court made it clear that trans people are protected under the gender reassignment provisions in the Equality Act and will be able to bring claims if they are discriminated or harassed.
Experts say a trans woman will be able to bring a sex discrimination claim if they are disadvantaged because they are perceived to be a woman or because they associate with a woman.
Rob McKellar, legal services director at Peninsula, said failure to be an inclusive workplace, regardless of any protected characteristics, could result in a discrimination claim.
What does the ruling mean for competitive sports?
In recent years, many sports have cracked down on rules around transgender athletes at the elite level.
Athletics, cycling and aquatics are among those who have banned trans women from taking part in women’s events.
The UK government said it hopes the decision will provide clarity for sports clubs.
Although today’s ruling did not concern sport directly, former Olympian Sharron Davies welcomed the decision, saying it was important to ‘define what a woman is’.
Could a pregnant woman with a GRC be entitled to maternity leave?
Experts said today that the ruling that only women can become pregnant shows a trans man (biological woman) would be able to take maternity leave, while a trans woman (biological man) would not.
Jo Moseley, an employment law specialist at national law firm Irwin Mitchell, said: ‘The Supreme Court acknowledged that only women can become pregnant. Therefore a trans man (a biological woman who identifies as a man) can take maternity leave.
‘Had the court reached a different decision, it’s possible that trans men with a GRC wouldn’t have been entitled to protection in relation to pregnancy under the characteristics of ‘pregnancy or maternity’.’