In the wake of a recent UK Supreme Court decision reaffirming that sex in law refers to biological reality, a political and cultural reckoning appears to be underway across Britain—and, according to journalist Jo Bartosch, perhaps beyond.
Appearing on Chicago’s Morning Answer with Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson, Bartosch described the intense backlash from trans activists following the high court’s ruling and explained why she believes the decision is a turning point in the broader debate over gender identity, women’s rights, and institutional accountability.
Supreme Court States the Obvious—But It Matters
The UK Supreme Court ruling clarified that legal sex distinctions are based on biology, not gender identity—an affirmation that should seem self-evident but has sparked outrage among activists and uncertainty among institutions.
While the ruling was seen by many as a long-overdue dose of common sense, Bartosch noted the irony that such a basic truth had to be affirmed by the nation’s highest court. “All it said was that sex in law is biological—and we all knew that,” she said. But thanks to lobbying by powerful trans activist groups, confusion had been institutionalized across Britain’s legal and educational systems.
Rage in the Streets
Following the ruling, trans activists held demonstrations across London. Bartosch, who viewed a livestream of the events, described the protests as “a shocking display of rage and entitlement.” The demonstrators carried vulgar signs, targeted feminist figures, and shouted profanities at public officials like author J.K. Rowling and Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
“It was essentially a temper tantrum,” she said. “They were angry that reality is being reaffirmed.”
Bartosch added that activists even defaced statues honoring historic women’s rights pioneers, further highlighting what she sees as the contradiction of a movement that claims to stand for inclusion but often turns its fury on women.
Institutions Struggling to Catch Up
Despite the legal clarity, institutions in the UK—from universities to professional organizations—are having trouble adjusting. The Law Society, for instance, issued a statement claiming it still needs further guidance on what “man” and “woman” mean under the law.
Bartosch also noted that many universities continue to issue statements in solidarity with trans activists and use preferred pronouns regardless of legal sex. The BBC, she said, still refers to male offenders who identify as female using female pronouns, further muddying public understanding.
But there are signs of change. “The public has been gaslit,” Bartosch said, pointing to years of media and institutional pressure to adopt gender ideology. “Now people are starting to feel empowered to tell the truth.”
A Shift in Language and Tone
One area where change is already occurring is in language use. Bartosch said that editors are becoming less insistent on using “preferred pronouns,” and that more publications are open to using accurate sex-based terms—especially in sensitive contexts like crime reporting or public policy.
“It used to be that I’d get pushback from editors,” she said. “That’s starting to lessen.”
However, high-ranking politicians—including Prime Minister Keir Starmer—remain hesitant. In a recent interview, Starmer welcomed the Supreme Court ruling but refused to clearly state whether a trans woman is a woman.
“Cowardice,” Bartosch called it.
Culture War Within the Labor Party
The ruling has also exposed rifts within Britain’s Labour Party. Bartosch noted that some MPs who had previously been silent or even hostile toward gender-critical feminists are now suddenly embracing the court’s decision.
She referenced Rosie Duffield, a Labour MP who was sidelined for standing by the view that biological sex matters. “It must be particularly galling for her,” Bartosch said, watching former colleagues now pretend they always agreed with her.
Much like in the U.S., she said, politicians hoping to moderate their stance are facing resistance from the party’s activist base—but the tide may be shifting.
America’s Mirror Image
The cultural and legal dynamics at play in Britain echo ongoing debates in the United States. The recent U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in Mahamud v. Taylor, involving parents seeking to opt their children out of gender ideology curriculum in Maryland, featured Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning whether families even had the right to object.
“If you don’t like it, leave,” Jackson suggested—an ironic twist given progressives’ general opposition to school choice.
Bartosch, watching from across the Atlantic, sees parallels. “There’s been a real rule of terror,” she said, noting the fear that kept people from liking Facebook posts or speaking honestly in the workplace. “We’re finally seeing a return to sanity.”
A Call to Clarity
Despite the victory in court, Bartosch said that the real work has just begun. “Institutions are still struggling,” she warned, but affirmed that public sentiment is turning against what she called “psychotic identitarianism.”
“We might laugh at this collective lunacy someday,” she wrote recently in Spiked, “but first we need to ask those who indulged it: What were you thinking?”
As the dust settles from the Supreme Court decision, Bartosch hopes more people on both sides of the Atlantic will find the courage to answer that question—and to return to reality.
Jo Bartosch is a journalist and campaigner for the rights of women and girls. Her recent article, A Trans Activist Temper Tantrum, is available at Spiked Online.