The UK’s Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman under equality legislation refers to biological sex, not acquired gender—marking a decisive moment in a long-standing legal battle that could reshape how sex-based protections are applied in England, Scotland, and Wales.
In a unanimous ruling, judges sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which challenged the Scottish Government’s stance that transgender women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) should be recognised as women in all legal contexts.
Delivering the verdict, Judge Lord Hodge said, “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.” He stressed, however, that the decision should not be interpreted as a victory of one societal group over another.
“But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not,” he added. “The legislation gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.”
The ruling stems from a dispute dating back to 2018, when Holyrood passed a bill to promote gender balance on public sector boards. For Women Scotland objected to the inclusion of trans women in female quotas, arguing that sex-based rights should exclusively apply to those born female.
Campaigners supporting the case were visibly emotional after the decision, embracing one another and celebrating outside the court.
Speaking after the ruling, For Women Scotland co-founder Susan Smith said: “Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex. Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the Supreme Court for this ruling.”
The Scottish Government had argued that the 2004 Gender Recognition Act made it clear that obtaining a GRC equates to a legal change of sex “for all purposes”. However, the court ruled that interpreting sex in this way would conflict with the definition of “man” and “woman” and undermine the Equality Act.
The judgment found that recognising sex based on certification rather than biology would risk confusion in a wide range of contexts, including single-sex services like hostels, changing rooms, prisons, and sport. It also warned such an approach could dilute protections for lesbians, citing concerns over preserving lesbian-only associations.
According to the ruling, “The practical problems that arise under a certificated sex approach are clear indicators that this interpretation is not correct.”
First Minister John Swinney acknowledged the ruling on social media, saying: “The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.”
A UK government spokesperson welcomed the judgment, stating it would bring “clarity and confidence for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs”.
“Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government,” the spokesperson added.
UK Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch hailed the decision as a “victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious”.
Author J.K. Rowling also voiced support, writing: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.”
But not everyone welcomed the judgment.
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman said: “This is a deeply concerning ruling for human rights and a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society. It could remove important protections and will leave many trans people and their loved ones deeply anxious and worried about how their lives will be affected and about what will come next.”
Vic Valentine, manager of Scottish Trans, said the group was “shocked” by the decision.
“This judgement seems to suggest that there will be times where trans people can be excluded from both men’s and women’s spaces and services,” Valentine said. “It is hard to understand where we would then be expected to go — or how this decision is compatible with a society that is fair and equal for everybody.”
The legal battle has highlighted broader tensions around the definitions of sex and gender, coming amid controversies like the case of transgender rapist Isla Bryson’s initial placement in a women’s prison and an ongoing tribunal involving a female NHS nurse who objected to sharing a changing room with a transgender doctor.
NHS Fife, involved in that case, said it would “carefully consider” the ruling.
The Supreme Court’s verdict overturns a previous 2022 judgment by Lady Haldane in Scotland, which concluded that sex “is not limited to biological or birth sex”.
Holyrood’s attempts to reform gender recognition laws were blocked by the UK Government earlier this year and have since been dropped by Scottish ministers.
Credit: BBC
