Edinburgh’s schools and Scotland’s public sector have been thrust into the national spotlight after a series of recent court rulings redefined the legal meaning of “woman” and “sex” in the UK’s anti-discrimination laws, setting off a cascade of policy changes and fierce debate across the country.
On September 2, 2025, city councillors in Edinburgh are set to review a report revealing that toilets at Maybury Primary School are “not compliant” with the new legal requirements that stem from landmark court decisions earlier this year. The report, according to Edinburgh Live, also highlights that a handful of other primary schools will have to modify their facilities—sometimes by making staff toilets available to pupils—where gender-neutral toilets do not already exist. Meanwhile, the city’s secondary schools and most of its primary schools are already in line with the new rules.
These sweeping changes follow two pivotal court decisions in April. The UK Supreme Court ruled that for the purposes of anti-discrimination law, trans women are not legally considered women, and trans men are not legally considered men. This ruling has had “wide reaching consequences,” especially in education, as the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) swiftly issued updated guidance for school toilets. The EHRC’s guidance states that “trans women should not be able to access women’s toilets, and trans men should not be able to access men’s toilets,” and also raised questions about whether mixed-sex toilet blocks are permissible.
Simultaneously, the Court of Session in Scotland ruled that mixed-sex toilets are not allowed in Scottish schools—a decision that forced local authorities to re-examine their estate and rapidly adapt. In May, Edinburgh councillors requested a comprehensive report on how these rulings would affect the city’s schools. The findings, now public, show that work is already underway to modify toilets in schools under construction or in planning, including at Trinity Academy, Liberton High School, and Wester Hailes High School. Where possible and necessary, adaptations will be made to ensure compliance with the new legal interpretations.
At Maybury Primary School, the report states, “toilet provision will be managed by the school management team” until a long-term solution is found. In some other primary schools, locks will be fitted to external doors of washbasin areas, allowing these spaces to function as gender-neutral toilets. However, the report also notes that the majority of the Scottish Government’s guidance on accommodating trans pupils remains valid—except in areas such as toilets, changing facilities, physical education, and residential trips, where the guidance no longer aligns with the law.
While the legal and logistical changes in schools are significant, the debate over the implications of the new rulings has spilled into other public sectors—most notably healthcare. In Dundee, an employment tribunal is currently hearing the case of nurse Sandie Peggie, who was placed on special leave after raising concerns about sharing a changing room with Dr Upton, a trans-identifying man who does not possess a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). Ms Peggie has filed a claim against NHS Fife and Dr Upton, citing the Equality Act 2010 and alleging sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination, and victimisation.
During closing submissions on September 1, 2025, Ms Peggie’s lawyer, Naomi Cunningham, argued forcefully that “trans women should be excluded from women-only spaces as they are ‘still men’ both ‘legally and factually’.” She referenced the recent Supreme Court judgment, stating: “Trans women are men. That reality is enshrined in law.” Cunningham continued, “Trans-identifying men who possess gender recognition certificates are for certain purposes deemed to be women. But without a GRC they are both legally and factually simply men.” She pointed out that Dr Upton “does not have a GRC, she’s never suggested that she does,” concluding, “Dr Upton, and any other man like him, not merely has no right to access women-only spaces. He must be excluded. That’s the inevitable consequence of the (Supreme Court) judgment in For Women Scotland.”
Cunningham accused NHS Fife of subjecting Ms Peggie, a nurse of 30 years’ unblemished service, to a “full-blown witch hunt to punish her for standing up for her right not to undress in front of a male colleague.” She went further, alleging “character assassination,” “groundless smears,” and attempts to “drive a wedge between her and her lesbian daughter.” According to Cunningham, the health board also “attacked” Peggie’s legal team, told “countless lies,” and its conduct had been “censured” by two regulators.
The cost of the tribunal to NHS Fife has already reached nearly £220,500 since it began earlier this year, according to Evening Standard. The case has also prompted the EHRC to intervene. In February, the commission wrote to NHS Fife regarding access to single-sex facilities for staff after the tribunal was adjourned. Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chairwoman of the EHRC, confirmed that NHS Fife had admitted no equality impact assessment had been carried out prior to the dispute, and that one was now being commissioned, expected to be completed by September 30, 2025.
The Scottish Government, too, has come under renewed scrutiny. At a meeting on June 10, 2025, the EHRC reiterated that the government has a duty to ensure public bodies comply with the Supreme Court’s April ruling, which clarified that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 “refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”
These developments have left many in Scotland grappling with the practical, ethical, and personal ramifications of the new legal landscape. Supporters of the court rulings argue that they restore clarity and uphold women’s rights to single-sex spaces, especially in sensitive environments like schools and hospitals. Critics, however, warn that the changes could marginalize trans individuals and undermine efforts at inclusion and equality—raising complex questions about how to balance competing rights and needs.
As the tribunal in Dundee continues and schools across Edinburgh adapt to the new requirements, the debate is far from settled. The coming months will likely see further legal challenges, policy adjustments, and passionate arguments on all sides. For now, one thing is clear: the definition of “woman” in law is no longer just a theoretical question in Scotland—it is a matter with immediate, tangible consequences for public life, education, and healthcare.
