Sky News reports:

Sir Keir Starmer has welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling on the legal definition of a woman.

Commenting publicly for the first time on last Wednesday's decision, the prime minister said the judgment provided "clarity" that "a woman is an adult female".

So it's strange that the press summary of the Supreme Court decision makes no mention of this 'clarity'.

[https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/press-summary/uksc-2024-0042]

Background to the Appeal

The issue to be determined by the Supreme Court in this appeal is one of statutory interpretation, namely the meaning of “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”).

...

In 2022, the Appellant challenged the lawfulness of the new statutory guidance. The Appellant submits that the definition of a “woman” under the EA 2010 refers to biological sex, meaning that a trans woman with a GRC (a biological male with a GRC in the female gender) is not considered a woman under the EA 2010, and consequently the ASP 2018.

...

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal. It holds that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex. Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler give a joint judgment, with which the other Justices agree.

So where exactly does the claim that a 'woman is an adult female' come from?

Apart from the fact that this is what the word 'woman' - as opposed to say, 'girl' - means, this comment by the PM has nothing whatever to do with the judgment.

This seems to be a shallow attempt by the PM to distract and deflect from the actual judgment, which Starmer clearly did not agree with in the past as many others have pointed out. J K Rowling has asked for an apology from the PM that she clearly won't get since now Starmer can say 'But I never said a woman was not an adult female'. See how that works?

And anyway, what is all the fuss about? The summary also makes clear:

Protection from Discrimination

This interpretation of the EA 2010 does not remove protection from trans people, with or without a GRC. Trans people are protected from discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment. They are also able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and indirect discrimination on the basis of sex. In the light of case law interpreting the relevant provisions, a trans woman can claim sex discrimination because she is perceived to be a woman. A certificated sex reading is not required to give this protection [248]-[263].

How much more 'clarity' about Protection from Discrimination is needed?

As Rod Liddle claims in The Spectator [https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hidden-violence-behind-the-trans-ruling/], politicians are becoming adept at 'performative lying' and the trouble is that a lot of people, trans or otherwise, believe these performances are real.