The Society for Women in Philosophy UK is not for women in philosophy. It’s for that other thing – the opposite.

It offers a “statement of solidarity and support in response to the recent UK Supreme Court ruling and EHRC guidance” which is not a statement of solidarity with women but rather a statement of solidarity with men who call themselves women.

(There’s no link to the statement because apparently they don’t do links; just scroll down – there’s not much on the page.)

What’s their philosophical take?

The Society for Women In Philosophy UK (SWIP UK) condemns the recent Supreme Court ruling on 16 April 2025 determining that the term ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010 refers to a binary and biological notion of ‘sex’, and the subsequent interim guidance published by the EHRC on 25 April 2025. 

Ah yes a “notion” – a peculiar eccentric addle-pated notion that sex refers to sex. Silly Supreme Court; if only they studied the works of professional trans ideologues like “India” Willoughby instead of relying on sexual dimorphism for their definition.

This ruling and the guidance undermine the human rights and safety of trans, non-binary, and intersex people and are also detrimental to cis women. Trans women are women, and belong in feminist organisations. There is no fight against sexism and misogyny separate from the fight against cissexism and transmisogyny.

In what way is it detrimental to women to know what women are? In what way is it not detrimental to women to pretend that men can be women? Deep philosophical questions which the Gang for Women in Philosophy don’t bother to answer, or even ask.

SWIP UK membership, in line with our recognitions and aims, has for many years been open to trans women and to other trans and/or non-binary people who feel the category of ‘woman’ is relevant to their experiences, and this will not change under any circumstances. 

Oh. Really? So it’s not the Society for Women in Philosophy. Why do they call themselves that while they disavow it? If it’s not for women why do they say it’s for women?

Ironically, that’s about the most obvious contradiction one could come up with, and philosophers are supposed to be alert to contradictions, and avoid them. It seems kind of cringey to feature and underline one right there on their website.