Campaigners in Scotland have reignited a legal battle with the Scottish government, challenging policies they say contradict a landmark Supreme Court decision on the definition of a woman. On August 17, 2025, For Women Scotland lodged legal action at the Court of Session, arguing that current rules for transgender pupils in schools and transgender people in custody are in "clear breach" of the law as interpreted by the UK’s highest court just months earlier.
The heart of the dispute lies in how the Equality Act 2010 is applied. In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the terms "woman" and "sex" in the Act refer specifically to biological women and biological sex. This ruling followed years of legal wrangling, with For Women Scotland previously mounting several challenges—most notably over Scottish legislation that required 50% female representation on public boards. That legal journey culminated in what supporters called a "watershed for women," with the Supreme Court siding unanimously with the campaigners.
Yet despite that decisive outcome, For Women Scotland contends that some Scottish government policies remain unchanged. According to BBC and Evening Standard reporting, the group points specifically to guidance in schools and prisons. In schools, current advice states that young people should, "where possible, be able to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with." In the prison system, guidelines allow transgender women to be admitted into the women’s estate, provided they do not meet the violence against women and girls criteria and there is no reason to suppose they pose an "unacceptable risk of harm" to others in the women’s estate.
For Women Scotland sees these policies as fundamentally at odds with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law. In a statement reported by BBC, the group said, "Nothing has persuaded the government to take action and both policies remain stubbornly in place, to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls, leaving us little choice but to initiate further legal action." The group is seeking a court declaration that the guidance for both schools and prisons is unlawful, and is asking for the policies to be "reduced in whole"—in other words, quashed entirely. They are also requesting that both policies be suspended while the legal process unfolds.
The Scottish government now faces a 21-day window to respond to the legal action, a deadline that began ticking on August 17. If the policies are not withdrawn within that time, For Women Scotland has stated it will proceed to lodge the summons for calling, which would require the government to defend its policies in court.
When asked for comment, a Scottish government spokesperson told BBC, "It would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings." This standard response offers little insight into the government’s legal strategy or willingness to reconsider the contested policies in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The background to this legal standoff is complex and deeply contentious. The Equality Act 2010 is a cornerstone of UK anti-discrimination law, offering protection on the basis of sex, gender reassignment, and other characteristics. For years, the question of whether "sex" in the Act refers to biological sex or includes those who have legally transitioned has been hotly debated. The Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling brought some clarity, stating that when the Act refers to "woman" and "sex," it means biological women and biological sex. However, the Act still explicitly protects transgender people under the characteristic of gender reassignment.
This nuance is crucial. The Supreme Court did not strip transgender people of legal protections; rather, it clarified which protections are sex-based and which are related to gender reassignment. As a result, public bodies across the UK have been forced to review their policies on single-sex spaces—ranging from toilets and changing rooms to hospital wards and, indeed, prisons and schools. The Scottish Parliament, for example, responded by designating male- and female-only toilets, though it retained gender-neutral facilities alongside them. Other institutions are still evaluating how to update their guidance and practical arrangements.
For Women Scotland’s new legal action zeroes in on areas where, in their view, the government has not gone far enough. The group contends that allowing transgender pupils to use facilities matching their gender identity, and permitting transgender women into the women’s prison estate under certain circumstances, undermines the Supreme Court’s decision and puts vulnerable women and girls at risk. In their words, these policies are "to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls."
The group’s critics, meanwhile, argue that such policies are essential for the dignity and safety of transgender people, and that blanket restrictions could themselves be discriminatory. The Scottish government, while declining to comment on the ongoing proceedings, has previously maintained that its policies are designed to balance the rights and safety of all individuals, including both women and transgender people. The prison guidance, for example, includes risk assessments aimed at preventing harm, and the school guidance emphasizes comfort and inclusion for all pupils.
This legal clash is only the latest chapter in a broader debate playing out across the UK and beyond. Advocates for women’s rights and transgender rights often find themselves at odds over the interpretation of equality law, the definition of sex and gender, and the practicalities of inclusion in public spaces. Each side accuses the other of undermining hard-won protections, and the courts are increasingly called upon to settle disputes that legislatures have struggled to resolve.
For now, the focus is squarely on the Scottish government’s next move. Will it defend its current policies in court, or will it amend them in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling and the renewed legal pressure from campaigners? The answer could have far-reaching implications, not only for Scotland but for the interpretation of equality law across the UK. As public bodies continue to grapple with how best to implement the law, the outcome of this case will be closely watched by supporters and critics alike.
As the legal clock ticks down, the tension between competing visions of equality remains unresolved. The courts, once again, may be left to decide where the balance should lie.
