A millionaire transgender 'lady of the manor' who underwent sex change surgery three times has condemned a landmark court ruling on legally defining women.
Samantha Kane, who owns Carbisdale Castle in Sutherland, Scotland, says yesterday's Supreme Court judgment is a 'backwards step' that would propel discrimination against trans people.
Ms Kane, a barrister, recently withdrew her castle from sale - having previously put it on the market for millions, claiming the rural area in which she lives was 'not ready' for it to have a transgender owner.
She has now spoken out about yesterday's ruling in London, which came after a case brought against the Scottish government by a women's rights group.
Ms Kane, 64, described the Supreme Court decision as 'another blow' to transgender rights - though it has also been widely welcomed by gender-critical activists.
Britain's top judges unanimously found that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not acquired gender.
The court's decision will have huge consequences for how single-sex spaces and services operate across the UK, experts have forecast.
The head of Britain's equalities watchdog today said trans women cannot use single-sex female toilets, changing rooms or compete in women's sports, in light of the Supreme Court ruling.
Samantha Kane, who owns Carbisdale Castle in Sutherland, Scotland , says yesterday's Supreme Court judgment is a 'backwards step'
Women's rights campaigners celebrated after the court in London ruled that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not acquired gender
Ms Kane, a barrister, recently withdrew Carbisdale Castle (pictured) from sale
The written Supreme Court judgment gave examples of potentially affected facilities such as rape or domestic violence counselling, refuges, rape crisis centres, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms.
The court ruled that trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if 'proportionate'.
It marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle between the Scottish government and women's group For Women Scotland over the definition of a 'woman' in Scottish law.
The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be protected from discrimination as a woman under the Equality Act.
The Scottish government had argued that such people were entitled to sex-based protections, meaning a transgender person with a GRC certificate identifying them as female would count towards women's quotas.
But campaign group For Women Scotland claimed they only applied to people born female.
The Supreme Court has...
[Short citation of 8% of the original article]