The thorny issue of trans rights is a problem that most would rather simply went away. Few of us know (or know we know) someone directly affected, someone who is unhappy with their given gender. Even allowing for the secrecy with which many conduct their lives, it directly affects only a small proportion of the population.

Nevertheless, it is indicative of what sort of people we are. So far, both sides have responded emotionally. Perhaps, with a clear legal decision, we can do better. Perhaps we can be more caring to each other. The Supreme Court of the UK recently gave their judgment, that it is biology, and not free choice, that determines the fact of being a woman in law.

What makes this a valuable ruling, after much angst and many mis-steps by elected representatives, is three-fold, and the last of these is as important as the first two. Firstly, we all need a clear judgment and definition of male and female in law. This becomes impossible if it is believed to depend on factors that can change by the day: how you dress; how much surgery or hormone treatment you have had; are you certificated; and, the most troubling, what you declare yourself to be – since when did the law allow, for example, the self-certification of guilt or innocence?

Women are women, as the campaigners affirmed, defined not so clearly by the presence or absence of certain body parts, though these are our crude identifiers, but by their chromosomes. In the vast majority of cases, these are a pair of X chromosomes. I suspect that, as clarification of the law develops, we as a society, but specifically the 49 per cent that are male, will accept a single or triple-X set, as discussed in an earlier column.

What you don’t want, in a designated women’s bathroom or prison or sporting contest, is that rogue Y chromosome that makes me what I am, a biological male. That male chromosome brings testosterone, and with it increased musculature, hairiness and, sadly, aggression.

Secondly, we, as society, cannot roll back on hard earned rights of the majority gender, that still experiences inequality, most notably in the form of male violence – the toxic masculinity of a previous article. So called safe spaces cannot be rendered less safe.Thirdly, we need a clear, settled judgment in order to do right by that most vulnerable group of individuals, those who do not wish to live as their given gender.I am sure, therefore, that we have the first part correct. You cannot buck the science – or women’s rights. Trans activists, in the established and honourable tradition of earlier liberation movements, have forced the issue to public attention.

The challenge now is to find the best way to manage the second, trans lives. I am not sure that it is that difficult to take the heat out of the debate.Sporting rules need to protect women and their rights, and prison facilities need to protect all persons. Trans women, who are not immediately identifiable as their birth-given gender, have been using women’s facilities for years, with little disturbance generated on either side.

This must therefore also be true for trans men in male-designated bathrooms. As has been said, no-one is going to suggest policing entry to such spaces – a bizarre thought!The proposed new right, the free choice to be a woman, legally recognised as such, was always problematic, always nuanced, and never a coherent or workable option. It was a logical and political error to demand self-certification, and it is now time to move on.