Scotland has once again become the focal point of a fierce national debate over the definition of sex, gender identity, and the rights of women and transgender people. At the heart of this latest legal and cultural battle is For Women Scotland, a campaign group that has already notched up significant legal victories against the Scottish government. On August 15, 2025, the group lodged a fresh summons in the Court of Session, targeting Scottish Ministers, the Lord Advocate, and the Advocate General for Scotland, as reported by The Times and The Sunday Times.
This new legal action, described as an ordinary action for reduction, seeks to quash two Scottish government policies: the 'Supporting Transgender Pupils In Schools: Guidance for Scottish Schools' and the Scottish Prison Service's 'Policy for the Management of Transgender People in Custody: Operational Guidance.' For Women Scotland argues that both policies are inconsistent with the landmark UK Supreme Court judgment delivered on April 16, 2025, in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, which clarified that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, 'sex' means biological sex.
The school guidance in question allows pupils "to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with" and states that "if PE classes are organised by sex, a transgender young person should be allowed to take part within the group which matches their gender identity." Meanwhile, the prison guidance permits biologically male prisoners—including those with histories of violence against women or girls—to be housed in female prison estates and to participate in female-only activities, even if they are considered too great a risk to be fully integrated with female prisoners.
For Women Scotland, which has campaigned against these policies since at least February 2024, contends that the government's refusal to withdraw or amend them is a direct breach of the law as clarified by the Supreme Court. The group’s director, Trina Budge, criticized the Scottish government's response to their previous legal victory, stating, “The delay in implementing the Supreme Court ruling is simply unacceptable and is unfair on vulnerable women and girls who continue to suffer from the government’s procrastination and incompetence.” According to The Sunday Times, Budge also remarked, “Male murderers are still locked up in women’s prisons and children have returned to school after the summer holidays into a quagmire of confusion, with many councils still following government instructions to let some teenage boys change with the girls.”
The Scottish government, for its part, has maintained that it will not withdraw the contested guidance, with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice all confirming their refusal in May 2025. The government says it is awaiting formal guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) before making any changes. First Minister John Swinney has publicly stated that he respects the Supreme Court ruling, but he now faces accusations of deliberately delaying implementation until after the 2026 Holyrood elections to preserve party unity amid internal divisions over gender self-ID policies.
These divisions are not trivial. Some factions within the SNP remain strongly supportive of gender self-ID, a policy legacy of former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. Critics argue that this stance has become a political liability, tarnishing Sturgeon’s legacy and eroding public support for the party. In the meantime, other public bodies, including the Scottish parliament and Police Scotland, have already moved to revise their own policies to comply with the Supreme Court’s definition of sex as biological. In April, a Scottish judge ordered that schools must provide single-sex toilets, but the government has not withdrawn its earlier guidance, which encourages teachers to affirm students’ gender identity and social transition regardless of age.
For Women Scotland’s chosen legal route—an ordinary action for reduction rather than a judicial review—is designed to be more straightforward and potentially much faster. If successful, this action would result in the challenged policies being declared unlawful and annulled by the courts. The group has also indicated that it may seek an interim order to suspend the policies while the case is decided, citing what it sees as a clear and compelling legal argument. The Scottish Ministers now have 21 days from August 15 to respond to the summons. If no action is taken to withdraw the policies, the group will press ahead, and the government will be compelled to defend its position in court.
The implications of this legal battle reach far beyond Scotland. The Supreme Court’s ruling has already had ripple effects across the UK. In England, the fitness chain Virgin Active recently changed its policy on access to single-sex changing rooms after a legal challenge from TV personality Michelle Dewberry. Dewberry, backed by the campaign group Sex Matters, complained after encountering a "man in women's clothing" in a female changing room in February 2025. Virgin Active subsequently announced that it would require all members to use changing rooms corresponding to their biological sex, citing the Supreme Court’s definition in the Equality Act. The company also pledged to introduce clearer signage and retain unisex changing rooms for all members.
The reaction to Virgin Active’s policy change has been deeply divided. Journalist Owen Jones condemned the move as creating "a hostile environment" for trans people, writing, "Trans people are being driven from public life. This is a monstrous injustice." Supporters of Dewberry, on the other hand, celebrated the decision as a victory for women’s safety and privacy. The EHRC is expected to confirm that public bodies can lawfully exclude trans women from female-only spaces, a development that will likely fuel further debate and legal challenges.
Back in Scotland, the financial cost of these legal battles has been substantial. The government spent around £216,000 on the first case brought by For Women Scotland and at least £157,816 on the second, with the total bill to taxpayers expected to exceed £600,000. Despite the mounting expenses and mounting pressure from campaigners, the government continues to resist calls to amend its policies, instead convening a working group of senior civil servants to assess the implications of the Supreme Court ruling. As of late July, this group had met seven times, but the identities of its members have not been disclosed.
With protests planned at Holyrood and a possible court date looming, the coming months promise to be pivotal. Both sides of the debate are watching closely as the legal, political, and social ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision continue to unfold. Whether the courts will ultimately force the Scottish government to abandon its gender self-ID policies remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the outcome will have profound consequences for the future of women’s rights, trans rights, and the interpretation of equality law across the UK.
As the legal clock ticks down, Scotland stands at the crossroads of a cultural reckoning that will shape its laws—and its society—for years to come.
