The Equality Act 2010 clearly always meant woman as biological women because it has its other categories of discrimination such as sexual orientation and gender. It was the trans lobby trying to steal the clothes as it were of real women that was always the issue. None of us have ever wanted to be unkind to trans people. It has simply been about protecting woman as woman, the biological person who gives birth etc.
The Supreme Court's own summary of the case makes it all clear including -
"As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex [168]-[172]. For example, the provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity (sections 13(6), 17 and 18 of the EA) are based on the fact of pregnancy and giving birth to a child. As a matter of biology, only biological women can become pregnant. Therefore, these provisions are unworkable unless “man” and “woman” have a biological meaning [177]-[188].
Interpreting “sex” as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of “man” and “woman” and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way [172]. It is important that the EA 2010 is interpreted in a clear and consistent way in order that groups which share a protected characteristic can be identified by those that the EA 2010 imposes obligations on so that they can perform those obligations in a practical way [151]-[154"