In a landmark ruling, the UK Supreme Court has unanimously determined that the legal definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010 is based on biological sex at birth, rather than on gender identity, even in cases where a transgender woman holds a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

‍

‍

The judgment marks a major victory for gender-critical campaigners, including For Women Scotland, which brought the case forward in 2022 and received legal support from the advocacy group Sex Matters. Five justices presiding over the case concluded that including transgender women with GRCs in the legal category of “woman” would contradict the Act’s clear definitions and create inconsistency in the interpretation of sex-based rights and protections.

‍

Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the court, stated that interpreting sex as “certificated sex” would render key elements of the Equality Act incoherent. He explained that such an interpretation would undermine the legal clarity surrounding provisions for pregnancy, maternity, and sex-specific protections in public services and employment.

‍

“The protected characteristic of sex refers to biological reality, not administrative change.” - Lord Hodge

‍

This decision presents a significant legal setback for the Scottish Government, which had sought to interpret the legislation more inclusively. It may now be barred from appointing transgender women to women-only positions on public boards, among other roles, even when those individuals possess a GRC. The ruling could also lead to tighter restrictions on access to women-only spaces and services, such as hospital wards, sports teams, changing rooms, shelters, and organisations established for same-sex attracted women.

‍

Supporters of the ruling argue that it restores necessary clarity and coherence to sex-based rights. Maya Forstater of Sex Matters said,

‍

“We are delighted the Supreme Court has upheld the plain meaning of the law. Sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, and this clarity is crucial for safeguarding women’s rights.”

‍

For Women Scotland echoed this sentiment, describing the decision as a reaffirmation that the term “woman” in the context of equality law refers specifically to those born female. The group, which has received public backing from author JK Rowling, has long argued that expanding the legal definition of “woman” to include individuals born male undermines the rights and safety of biological women.

‍

The decision has been met with disappointment and concern from transgender rights groups. Scottish Trans urged members of the community and allies to stay calm in response to the ruling, cautioning against overreaction and promising further analysis once the full judgment is digested. The group said in a social media post,

‍

“We’ll say more as soon as we’re able to. Please look out for yourselves and each other today.”

‍

Ellie Gomersall, a transgender woman and member of the Scottish Green Party, criticised the ruling as a regression in legal recognition for transgender individuals. Ellie said,

‍

“This ends two decades of legal understanding that transgender people with a GRC could be treated, for most purposes, as our lived gender. This decision strikes at the heart of our rights to dignity, safety and respect.”

‍

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which had supported the Scottish Government’s position in court, acknowledged the decision and signalled its intention to examine the ruling’s long-term implications.

‍

Chair Kishwer Falkner noted that the judgment addressed several concerns the commission had raised, particularly around the rights of same-sex attracted individuals and the maintenance of single-sex services.

‍

In closing, Lord Hodge emphasised that the ruling should not be seen as a win for one group over another. Lord Hodge stated, “This is not a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. Trans people remain protected under the Equality Act from discrimination and harassment.”

‍