Debate contribution: Supreme Court Ruling: Legal Definition of a Woman

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 28 April 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

28 April 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Matters of the Day

Heading

Supreme Court Ruling: Legal Definition of a Woman

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4913349

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Supreme Court's judgement has come after much controversy and debate on the subject, which has become tragically toxic and toxically divided. It has placed in toxic and false opposition the hard-fought rights of women, and, indeed, the continued fight for women's safety from violence, which is a subject that we have debated in the Chamber, against the rights of trans people to be acknowledged as human beings who are worthy of basic dignity, courtesy, respect and accommodation. Those two sets of rights do not have to be in competition with or opposition to one another. I acknowledge that the court judgement has been made and that there will be consequences on the other side of the Irish Sea. Public bodies here will scrutinise and examine that judgement. I say that first, but I also say this: the judgement does not render invisible or meaningless the lives and experiences of trans people. Trans people are real people. The Member opposite is shaking his head. It is really important —.

Frankly, we need to move on from the idea of dehumanising and demeaning trans people as if they do not exist and their experience is somehow to be dismissed and trivialised. I and my party have always said that such subjects need to be talked about sensitively. Where there are specific and legitimate questions, whether they are on single-sex spaces or sports, we can have a serious debate, but I will not debate trans people's existence and their right to basic respect and dignity. Some of what we have heard today from the opposite Benches has, again, drifted into stigmatising and humiliating those people. It is somewhat ironic to hear Mr Buckley and others in his party portray themselves as great feminists and fighters for women's rights. Women in this society had to fight for a long time to secure access to basic rights, bodily autonomy and, specifically, court judgements.

OK, but there are trans people who will be anxious about what this judgement means for them, and to those people I say this: I acknowledge that this is a difficult time. You have rights, which will be protected. I and others in my party will continue to acknowledge you as human beings who are deserving of basic courtesy, rights and respect. That has to be at the forefront of everything that we do. By the way, no one has ever denied biological sex. Trans people have to confront the reality of biological sex in their lives, because that is how they transition, so that is an absurd canard thrown up by Members opposite. Where there are issues and questions about single-sex spaces, I hope that, in future —

— we can debate them in a more level-headed, humane and serious way than we have today.

465 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:26 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification