The UK’s Supreme Court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer specifically to biological women and biological sex. This landmark decision could have long-term implications for equalities policy in Britain, particularly around how transgender individuals are recognised in law.
The case centred on whether someone with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) identifying them as female should be considered a woman under the Equality Act. The ruling arose from a legal challenge led by the campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS), which has been supported by author JK Rowling.
The immediate consequence of the ruling is that transgender women can no longer be counted in positions reserved for women on public boards. More broadly, it could influence how trans people access single-sex spaces such as toilets, refuge centres, changing rooms, hospital wards, and women-only charities.
The ruling comes at a time of heightened national debate over sex and gender identity, and it is expected to intensify pressure on both the UK and Scottish governments to clarify their positions.
In their unanimous decision, the justices ruled in favour of FWS. Lord Hodge, joined by Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones, and Ladies Rose and Simler, stated that the “central question” was how the terms “woman” and “sex” should be interpreted in the context of the Equality Act. They concluded that both terms refer exclusively to biological characteristics.
The court argued that allowing “sex” to include gender identity could create practical complications for single-sex service providers, such as those running changing rooms, homeless shelters, and medical services.
Trans rights advocates have urged people not to overreact while further guidance is awaited. They stressed that while the ruling has legal weight, the day-to-day consequences are not yet fully defined.
The case dates back to 2018, when the Scottish Parliament under Nicola Sturgeon introduced a bill to establish gender balance quotas on public boards. The legislation was amended to include transgender women with GRCs, prompting a legal challenge from FWS. Although the campaign group initially lost their case in Scottish courts, they eventually took their appeal to the UK Supreme Court. Their legal campaign has been supported by over £230,000 in crowdfunding, including a £70,000 donation from Rowling.
FWS director Trina Budge argued that failing to tie the definition of sex to biological sex could lead to public boards consisting entirely of men and trans women, yet still being considered balanced in terms of female representation.
The ruling extends beyond Scottish law, influencing how the 2010 Equality Act is interpreted across Great Britain. Gender-critical campaigners see the ruling as a protection of sex-based rights, especially in areas such as sports, healthcare, and education.
Trans rights groups, on the other hand, have warned that the decision may undermine protections and recognition afforded to people who have legally transitioned. Ruth Crawford KC, representing the Scottish Government, argued that individuals with GRCs have a “fundamental right” to recognition and should receive the same legal protections as those assigned female at birth.
As political parties gear up for elections, this ruling is likely to be a major talking point. The Equality and Human Rights Commission had previously raised concerns that Parliament may not have fully considered the implications of allowing transgender women with GRCs to be treated as legally female under the Act.
Critics worry that excluding trans women from the legal definition of “woman” could lead to loss of protections around equal pay and sex discrimination, while contributing to a wider climate of marginalisation.
In response to the ruling, Edinburgh-based charity Scottish Trans has called for calm, stating that many reports may exaggerate the decision’s impact on daily life. Amnesty International UK also described the ruling as disappointing, though it noted that trans people remain protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment.
0 Comments