Many women have long been anxious about the British judiciary’s stance on gender ideology. The Supreme Court decision in April — in which the court ruled that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, the terms “sex”, “man”, and “woman” refer to biological sex — has forced a long-overdue change of protocol. For one thing, it signalled to judges that they must halt the absurd spectacle of allowing rape suspects to use their “preferred pronouns” in criminal courts.

Now, though, an astonishing judgment in a divorce case has put the spotlight on the civil courts, suggesting that urgent intervention is required there as well. To most observers, the idea that an ex-wife should have to pay towards the cost of her husband’s “sex change” surgery is preposterous. But that’s what’s happened in a case heard in Brighton Family court, even though the husband’s desire to take cross-sex hormones and “transition to a woman” was the direct cause of the breakdown of the marriage.

The dispute hinged on whether “sex change” surgery was medically necessary and should be paid for out of joint funds. The judge, Stuart Farquhar, ruled that it was a “need”, not a “whim”, and it was therefore reasonable that the wife should pay half the £160,000 cost of the procedure.

Judges are not usually medically qualified, and therefore are not in the best position to judge medical matters. Despite what one might think from the propaganda of recent years, sex-change surgery is hugely controversial. Many people contest the notion that it is possible to change sex at all, arguing that surgery doesn’t turn men into women. Those who believe that one cannot change one’s sex would likely regard it as an elective procedure, like cosmetic surgery. The husband in this case argued the opposite, claiming that refusing to make his ex-wife pay half the cost would be “like saying someone who had cancer should not have the surgery”.

It’s not easy to see why the judge had any time for this argument, which puts a lifestyle choice on a par with treatment for a life-threatening condition. His ruling noted that the husband had provided medical evidence of gender dysphoria, which had caused “significant anxiety, depression and distress”. He went on to say that “vaginoplasty surgery was considered the appropriate next step.”

It’s worth spelling out what this means: a UK court considers it reasonable to expect a mother of two children to pay £80,000 towards the cost of her ex-husband obtaining a fake vagina. A mother who, in this instance, was “deeply shocked” when her husband announced he intended to live the rest of his life “as a lesbian woman”.

She began divorce proceedings, and the husband claimed he couldn’t afford to pay court-ordered maintenance to her and the children during their separation. He did, however, run up a £14,000 Amex bill in a single month, most of it spent on clothes, nail treatments, jewellery and restaurants.

Divorce is often difficult and acrimonious. But this case surely enters new territory, appearing to accept the claims of an ideology that’s had its central argument rejected by the country’s highest court. It also extends the definition of what is medically necessary, raising questions about other elective procedures. Should an ex-husband have to pay towards his wife’s breast enhancement, on the grounds that she’s depressed by their divorce and it will help her find a new partner?

Wives whose husbands claim to be transgender have not received sufficient sympathy or attention, even though they — and their children — are a living rebuttal of the “what harm does it do?” argument made by trans activists. The ruling raises new questions about impartiality, suggesting that the judiciary is still too inclined to accept the tenets of an ideology which promotes the interests of self-centred men over the rights of women.

---

Joan Smith is a novelist and columnist. She was previously Chair of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women and Girls Board, and is on the advisory group for Sex Matters. Her book Unfortunately, She Was A Nymphomaniac: A New History of Rome’s Imperial Women was published in November 2024.

polblonde

---