This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/16/critics-of-trans-rights-win-uk-supreme-court-case-over-definition-of-woman

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 6 Version 7
Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules
(about 2 hours later)
Judges say Equality Act definition excludes transgender women, after gender-critical campaigners’ challengeJudges say Equality Act definition excludes transgender women, after gender-critical campaigners’ challenge
The UK supreme court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, in a victory for gender-critical campaigners.The UK supreme court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, in a victory for gender-critical campaigners.
Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).
In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, the court decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women. The judgment could have far-reaching ramifications and lead to greater restrictions on the access for trans women to services and spaces reserved for women. It prompted calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.
It could have far wider ramifications by leading to much greater restrictions on the rights of transgender women to use services and spaces reserved for women, and prompt calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten. The UK government said the ruling brought “clarity and confidence” for women and those who run hospitals, sports clubs and women’s refuges.
The UK government said the ruling “brings clarity and confidence” for women and those who run hospitals, sports clubs and women’s refuges. A spokesperson said: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”
A spokesperson said: “We have always supported the protection of single sex spaces based on biological sex. Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.” The case was brought to the supreme court by the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, after two Scottish courts rejected its arguments that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female.
John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, posted on social media: “The Scottish government accepts today’s supreme court judgment. 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.” Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said the Equality Act was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.
Lord Hodge told the court the Equality Act (EA) was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.
That affected policymaking on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said.That affected policymaking on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said.
In a verbal summary of the decision, he said: “Interpreting sex as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of man and woman in the EA and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way. It would create heterogeneous groupings. In its 88-page judgment, the court said that while the word “biological” did not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman”.
“As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination, and especially those relating to pregnancy and maternity and to protection from risks specifically affecting women, can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.” If “sex” did not only mean biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces including changing rooms, homeless hostels and medical services would face “practical difficulties”, it said.
The justices added: “If as a matter of law, a service provider is required to provide services previously limited to women also to trans women with a GRC, even if they present as biological men, it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men …”
The justices added: “Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.”
The ruling represents a significant defeat for the Scottish government. For Women Scotland had initially challenged legislation that allowed trans women with a GRC to sit on public boards in posts reserved for women.
Scotland’s first minister, John Swinney, said his government accepted the court’s judgment. He said it clarified the limits of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which introduced gender recognition certificates for trans people.
“We will now engage on the implications of the ruling,” he said. “Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.”
The Scottish government defended its actions in the case, which it said were always guided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s advice. It said it would now engage with UK ministers and with the EHRC to look at the ruling’s implications, since the legislation involved was passed by Westminster.
Trans rights campaigners urged trans people and their supporters to remain calm about the decision.Trans rights campaigners urged trans people and their supporters to remain calm about the decision.
The campaign group Scottish Trans said: “We are really shocked by today’s supreme court decision, which reverses 20 years of understanding of how the law recognises trans men and women with gender recognition certificates.The campaign group Scottish Trans said: “We are really shocked by today’s supreme court decision, which reverses 20 years of understanding of how the law recognises trans men and women with gender recognition certificates.
“We will continue working for a world in which trans people can get on with their lives with privacy, dignity and safety. That is something we all deserve.”“We will continue working for a world in which trans people can get on with their lives with privacy, dignity and safety. That is something we all deserve.”
Ellie Gomersall, a trans woman in the Scottish Green party, called on the UK government to change the law to entrench full equality for trans people. Sacha Deshmukh of the human rights group Amnesty International UK, which joined with the Scottish government in the supreme court case, said the decision was “clearly disappointing”.
Gomersall said: “I’m gutted to see this judgment from the supreme court, which ends 20 years of understanding that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate are able to be, for almost all intents and purposes, recognised legally as our true genders. “There are potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment,” he said.
“These protections were put in place in 2004 following a ruling by the European court of human rights, meaning today’s ruling undermines the vital human rights of my community to dignity, safety and the right to be respected for who we are.” “The ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, as well as other provisions under the Equality Act.”
The gender critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, said the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female. Susan Smith, a co-founder of For Women Scotland, said the legal action had been “a really, really long road”. “Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex,” she said.
Maya Forstater, a gender critical activist who helped set up the campaign group Sex Matters, which took part in the supreme court case by supporting For Women Scotland, said the decision was correct. “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.”
“We are delighted that the supreme court has accepted the arguments of For Women Scotland and rejected the position of the Scottish government. The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not to paperwork.” In a social media post, Rowling said: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court,” adding: “I’m so proud to know you.”
Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said it believed the position taken by the Scottish government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission that people with gender recognition certificates did qualify as women, while those without did not, created “two sub-groups”. Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said it believed the position taken by the Scottish government and the EHRC that people with gender recognition certificates did qualify as women, while those without did not, created “two sub-groups”.
This would confuse any organisations they were involved with. A public body could not know whether a trans woman did or did not have that certificate because the information was private and confidential.This would confuse any organisations they were involved with. A public body could not know whether a trans woman did or did not have that certificate because the information was private and confidential.
And allowing trans women the same legal status as biological women could also affect spaces and services designed specifically for lesbians, who had also suffered historical discrimination and abuse.And allowing trans women the same legal status as biological women could also affect spaces and services designed specifically for lesbians, who had also suffered historical discrimination and abuse.
In part of the ruling that could have sweeping implications for policymakers in the sports world and sports centres, he said some services and places could “function properly only if sex is interpreted as biological sex”. Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the EHRC, said it was pleased the ruling had dealt with its concerns about the lack of clarity around single-sex and lesbian-only spaces, but would need time to fully understand its implications.
“Those provisions include separate spaces and single-sex services, including changing rooms, hostels, medical services, communal accommodation, [and] arise in the operation of provisions relating to single-sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty and the armed forces.”
Hodge urged people not to see the decision “as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”. He said all transgender people had clear legal protections under the 2010 act against discrimination and harassment.
Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which had intervened in the case to support the Scottish government’s stance, said it would need time to fully interpret the ruling’s implications.
However, the commission was pleased it had dealt with its concerns about the lack of clarity around single-sex and lesbian-only spaces.
“We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.”“We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.”