This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo

The article has changed 15 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Supreme Court to announce ruling on definition of a woman Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman
(about 2 hours later)
The issue has made its way to the highest court in the UK for a ruling Campaigners gathered outside the Supreme Court for the verdict
The UK Supreme Court is to deliver its verdict on how a woman should be defined in law. The UK Supreme Court has unanimously backed the biological definition of "woman" under the 2010 Equality Act.
The announcement marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle between the Scottish government and a women's group. It marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle which could have major implications for how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.
The outcome could have far-reaching implications on how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales. Judges sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against the Scottish government arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to people that are born female.
The Scottish government argues transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to sex-based protections, while For Women Scotland argues they only apply to people that are born female. Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, and stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people.
The legal arguments have come at a time of heated debate on gender issues The Scottish government argued in court that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.
The ruling, to be announced at about 09:45, is expected to set out how the law should treat transgender people. The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain.
It could affect single-sex spaces and services, as well as equal pay claims, maternity policy and sports events. Lord Hodge said the central question was how the words "woman" and "sex" are defined in the legislation.
The legal arguments have come at a time of heated debate on gender issues. He told the court: "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.
The Supreme Court is deciding on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain. "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."
The law provides protection against discrimination on the basis of various characteristics, including "sex" and "gender reassignment". He added that 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 case against the Scottish government was brought by a women's group The Supreme Court case follows years of legal arguments over the definition of a woman under the law
Judges in London are ruling on what that law means by "sex" - whether it means biological sex, or legal, "certificated" sex as defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act. Campaigners who brought the case against the Scottish government hugged each other and punched the air as they left the courtroom, with several of them in tears.
The Scottish government says the 2004 legislation is clear that obtaining a GRC amounts to a change of sex "for all purposes". The Equality Act provides protection against discrimination on the basis of various characteristics, including "sex" and "gender reassignment".
Government lawyer Ruth Crawford KC told the court that "a person who has become the sex of their acquired gender is entitled to the protections of that sex". Judges at the Supreme Court in London were asked to rule on what that law means by "sex" - whether it means biological sex, or legal, "certificated" sex as defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
Aidan O'Neill KC, representing For Women Scotland, argues for a "common sense" meaning of the words man and woman, telling the court that sex is an "immutable biological state". The Scottish government argued the 2004 legislation was clear that obtaining a GRC amounts to a change of sex "for all purposes".
For Women Scotland argued for a "common sense" interpretation of the words man and woman, telling the court that sex is an "immutable biological state".
How did we get here?How did we get here?
The case follows years of heated debate over transgender and women's rights, including controversy over transgender rapist Isla Bryson initially being put in a women's prison and an ongoing employment tribunal involving a female nurse who objected to a transgender doctor using a women's changing room.
The legal dispute began in 2018, when the Scottish Parliament passed a bill designed to ensure gender balance on public sector boards.The legal dispute began in 2018, when the Scottish Parliament passed a bill designed to ensure gender balance on public sector boards.
For Women Scotland complained that ministers had included transgender people as part of the quotas in that law.For Women Scotland complained that ministers had included transgender people as part of the quotas in that law.
After several cases in the Scottish courts, the issue has been sent to the Supreme Court in London for a final ruling. The issue has been contested several times in the Scottish courts.
For Women Scotland has warned that if the court sides with the government, it would have implications for the running of single-sex spaces and services, such as hospital wards, prisons, refuges and support groups. Holyrood ministers won the most recent case in Scotland, with judge Lady Haldane ruling in 2022 that the definition of sex was "not limited to biological or birth sex".
Transgender people have warned the case could erode the protections they have against discrimination in their reassigned gender. The Scottish Parliament passed reforms that year that would have made it easier for someone to change their legally recognised sex.
Amnesty International has said that since the Equality Act protects other minority groups, the case could be the "thin end of the wedge" which could undermine other rights.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission - the regulator in charge of enforcing the 2010 act - has called for legal reform as a result of the case.
The Scottish Parliament passed reforms in 2022 that would have made it easier for someone to change their legally recognised sex.
The move was blocked by the UK government, and has since been dropped by Holyrood ministers.The move was blocked by the UK government, and has since been dropped by Holyrood ministers.