[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

It does not such thing.

Where does it use the word "female"?
Link

For those just joining us, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

• The decision came following a lengthy legal case between the Scottish government and the women's rights group For Women Scotland, regarding equalities legislation.
• Judge Lord Hodge said the decision was not "a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another".
• However the court ruled the Equality Act 2010 would be “incoherent and impracticable” if the "certificated sex" view - letting a person with a gender recognition certificate be classed as that gender - took hold.
• The ruling said that "the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man."
• There was an outpouring of emotion following the verdict, as women's rights campaigners celebrated.
• For Women Scotland said the judges had said what they always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex.
• The UK government stated the decision provides clarity for hospitals, refuges and sports clubs.
• Charity Scottish Trans asked trans people "not to panic" about the news.

The whole thing is about whether "female" and "woman" are linked and interchangeable. IE that changing to be "female", automatically becomes changing to be a "woman".
From 88 page judgment.

155. Against that background, we turn to address the central question in this appeal.
156. To recap, section 9(1) of the GRA 2004, read with section 9(2) and (3), has the effect that the gender of a person with a GRC becomes the acquired gender “for all purposes” so that “if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman”,