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.
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 now ruled that the words ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the Equality Act must mean ‘biological sex’, rejecting any alternative interpretations as ‘incoherence and impracticable’.
Yet while campaigners such as Harry Potter author JK Rowling have been celebrating the ruling, the group Labour for Trans Rights called it ‘hugely disappointing’.
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 court ruled that trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if ‘proportionate’.
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’.’
They branded the move ‘a result of ceaseless lobbying from a well-funded anti-trans network with links to the global far-Right’.
Now Ms Kane has added her voice of opposition to the judgment, saying: ‘It’s another blow to a marginalised group who will now get even more marginalised and discriminated against.
‘My own personal view is that it’s not for a judge to rule what the definition of a woman is.’
Speaking about transgender people, she said: ‘We are born into a body we find alien. I always thought I was a woman. I tried very hard to be a man but I just couldn’t do it.
‘The human rights argument was not well advanced in this case. The Supreme Court’s definition of what is a man and a woman is too narrow – its interpretation in relation to the Equality Act is even more narrow.
‘In my view, it makes the Equality Act pointless.’
She added: ‘I have lived as a woman for over 30 years. I am very happy with who I am. I am a pioneer. But I have suffered a lot of discrimination.
‘I had stones thrown at me by builders at first. This decision will make such discrimination even worse.’
Recently it was revealed how Ms Kane, who has changed gender three times, was suing the NHS over an allegedly ‘botched’ realignment operation which left her in ‘constant pain’. The NHS is fighting the claim.
Ms Kane is thought to be the only person in Britain to have changed gender three times.
Born in Iraq as a man named Sam Hashimi, she had surgery in 1997 to become Samantha, before a second operation in 2004 after which she changed her name to Charles Kane and then a third surgery to become Samantha again in 2018.
Now the wealthy trans pioneer is suing University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust – claiming its refusal to give her treatment relating to her third operation amounted to negligence, discrimination and a breach of her human rights.
She is a trained engineer, barrister and business tycoon, who as Sam Hashimi spearheaded a Saudi Arabian bid to buy football club Sheffield United in 2000.
Ms Kane says she has been battling constant pain since undergoing what she has labelled a ‘botched operation’ in Serbia in March 2018.
She claims doctors at the London NHS trust refused to treat her twice – in 2017 when she went to them asking for a third gender reassignment operation and again after undergoing the procedure in Serbia.
She says the surgery left her with ‘infected’ surgical devices inside her body, causing agony which she endured for three years until UCLH medics agreed to help in 2021.
She called herself Lady Carbisdale after buying Carbisdale Castle, a dilapidated 19-bedroom clifftop castle near Ardgay.
She renovated it with plans including eco-lodges an exclusive members’ club and even a recreation of the legendary Hanging Gardens of Babylon on the property’s sloping grounds.
The wealthy barrister has ploughed millions of pounds into restoring Carbisdale Castle to its former glory after fulfilling her dream to become a ‘princess in her own fairytale’ by buying the 118-year-old property in 2022.
The home was originally built for Mary Caroline, the Duchess of Sutherland, who had been embroiled in bitter a feud with her in-laws – which led to the property being dubbed the ‘Castle of Spite’.
Ms Kane, who has had run-ins with some locals, has described the castle as an impulse buy – and that she saw an advert for the lavish property, boarded a plane north and made a cash offer.
She is now launching this month a community interest company for the castle, a listed building which was previously on the market for offers over £1.2million.
Meanwhile, Equality and Human Rights Commission chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner has described Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling as ‘enormously consequential’- as she vowed to pursue organisations which did not update their policies.
Baroness Falkner said bodies should be ‘taking care’ to look at the ‘very readable judgment’ to ‘understand that it does bring clarity’ and ‘helps them decide what they should do’.
Asked whether it was now simple that trans women could not take part in women’s sport, she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘Yes, it is.’
On the issue of changing rooms and toilets, Baroness Falkner said: ‘Single-sex services like changing rooms must be based on biological sex.
‘If a male person is allowed to use a women-only service or facility, it isn’t any longer single-sex, then it becomes a mixed-sex space.
‘But I have to say, there’s no law that forces organisations, service providers, to provide a single-sex space, and there is no law against them providing a third space, an additional space, such as unisex toilets for example, or changing rooms.’
She suggested trans rights organisations ‘should be using their powers of advocacy to ask for those third spaces’.
The commission is expecting to lay an updated statutory code of practice before Parliament by the summer, and has said it is working ‘at pace to incorporate the implications of this judgment’ into the code for public bodies setting out their duties under the Equality Act.
Baroness Falkner said the commission evaluated when the law was not followed by organisations and could speak to those bodies or ‘use enforcement, compliance tools or whatever’, adding: ‘We will be continuing to do that.’
Regarding single-sex hospital wards, she said the NHS would ‘have to change’ their 2019 policy stating that trans people ‘should be accommodated according to their presentation’.
Baroness Falkner said the court ruling meant there was now ‘no confusion’ and the NHS could ‘start to implement the new legal reasoning and produce their exceptions forthwith’.
Officials said they were already updating the guidance but the judgment would be considered as they moved forward.
The Government’s care minister Karin Smyth told BBC Breakfast the NHS would ‘obviously be complying’, along with ‘every other public body’.
She told of hoping the ruling would draw a line under arguments over gender recognition – but accepted more ‘homework’ needed to be done on what it would mean in practice.
The Supreme Court decision was hailed as a victory by women’s rights campaigners, but LGBT charity Stonewall described the judgment as ‘incredibly worrying for the trans community’.
JK Rowling channelled the A-Team as she continued to celebrate the Supreme Court ruling that trans women were not legally women – posting a picture of herself puffing on a cigar.
The Harry Potter author claimed yesterday’s decision, which found the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, as a major victory for ‘the rights of women and girls across the UK’.
The 59-year-old has been a vocal supporter of campaign group For Women Scotland, throwing her cultural and financial clout behind its long-running legal battle against the Scottish government over the definition of a ‘woman’ in Scottish law.
After sharing a post on X, formerly Twitter, suggesting she and her husband were clinking glasses of Champagne after the ruling, she has now followed up with a selfie of her smoking.
She accompanied it with the words: ‘I love it when a plan comes together. #SupremeCourt #WomensRights.’
That was the catchphrase of the A-Team character and leader George ‘Hannibal’ Smith, played in the 1980s TV series by the late George Peppard.
Earlier in the evening, Rowling had shared a photo on X of what appeared to be two glasses of prosecco under a sunny canopy, as she toasted the decision with her husband Neil.
Alongside the image, she wrote: ‘We toasted you @ForWomenScot. Neil says it’s TERF VE Day [laughing emoji] #SupremeCourt #WomensRights.’
The term ‘TERF’ is used to describe people whose views on gender identity are seen as hostile towards transgender people.