The debate over transgender rights and the definition of sex in law and policy has reached a fever pitch in the United Kingdom and the United States, with recent court rulings and institutional policies laying bare the tensions between competing visions of equality, fairness, and inclusion. In the past year, a series of high-profile decisions and policy statements have highlighted the profound legal, ethical, and social questions at stake—especially when it comes to access to women’s spaces, participation in sports, and the boundaries of free expression.
In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that clarified a crucial point of law: for the purposes of the Equality Act, sex means biological sex, not self-declared gender identity. According to BBC, this decision has had far-reaching implications, prompting organizations across the country to reassess their policies regarding transgender inclusion. Yet, as October drew to a close, it became clear that consensus was nowhere in sight.
One flashpoint has been the BBC itself. As of October 26, 2025, the broadcaster announced that its staff could work from home due to ongoing disputes over trans women’s continued use of women’s toilets. This pragmatic move underscored the difficulties many employers face in balancing the rights of trans employees and those who believe that women’s spaces should be reserved for those assigned female at birth. The BBC’s decision, as reported by GB News, is emblematic of a broader uncertainty gripping British institutions in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
While some organizations have hesitated to update their policies in response to the Court’s judgment, others have chosen a different path. In September 2025, the Council of the London Mathematical Society (LMS) published a new Statement of Commitment to Trans Inclusion. According to The Spectator, the LMS’s policy explicitly supports the use of gender-neutral toilets and affirms that individuals should be able to use facilities that align with their affirmed gender identity. This statement, written after the Supreme Court’s ruling, appears to openly contradict the legal definition of sex established by the Court.
The LMS policy goes further, setting out new rules on speech and conduct regarding trans people. Members may face suspension for consistently using incorrect pronouns or for ‘denial’ of a person’s affirmed identity. There are no qualifications or exceptions in the written policy, which applies to all contexts. The LMS General Secretary, responding to concerns, suggested that if a member does not wish to use a particular pronoun, they could simply use the individual’s name instead, stating, "The sentence can only become clearer with this change. I do not see how this restricts freedom of expression."
Critics argue that these rules amount to language policing and threaten academic freedom. The Spectator’s columnist described how similar policies in universities have led to disciplinary action against women who objected to trans women using female facilities or refused to use preferred pronouns. The author recounted cases such as nurse Sandie Peggie, who was suspended after complaining about a trans woman using female changing rooms (though later cleared), and the Darlington nurses who were told by HR to “broaden their mindset” after objecting to a male colleague in their changing rooms. Even in court, women have been reprimanded for not using a trans woman’s preferred pronouns.
The columnist, feeling that the LMS’s approach undermined women’s rights and open debate, instructed lawyers to send a pre-action letter to the LMS on October 26, 2025, requesting that the society withdraw its statement. The move signals the likelihood of further legal challenges as organizations grapple with the conflicting demands of equality law and trans inclusion.
Across the Atlantic, the legal landscape is equally contentious. On October 26, 2025, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously that USA Powerlifting discriminated against JayCee Cooper, a transgender woman, by barring her from two women’s competitions in 2018. According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, Cooper, who was undergoing hormone therapy and had submitted documentation showing her testosterone levels were within the International Olympic Committee’s allowable range for women, filed a lawsuit in 2021. She argued that USA Powerlifting’s blanket ban on transgender women in female-designated competitions violated Minnesota’s Human Rights Act, which explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity.
The court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, found that USA Powerlifting’s policy was "discriminatory on its face" and failed to consider whether a transgender woman actually had a competitive advantage in a given case. “There is no individualized nuance to USA Powerlifting’s position,” Hudson wrote. “It assumes that every transgender woman has a competitive advantage in the women’s division. There is no assessment of whether that is true in a particular case.”
However, the court stopped short of resolving all aspects of the case. USA Powerlifting had argued that its policy was not based on gender identity but on what it described as "strength advantages" resulting from male puberty—advantages they claimed could not be reversed by hormone therapy. The organization submitted expert testimony and scientific evidence to support its position, citing increased muscle mass, bone density, and other physiological factors. The court determined that there was a legitimate question as to whether the ban served a "legitimate business purpose" and sent that part of the case back to the lower court for further review.
Transgender advocates hailed the ruling as a significant victory. Jess Braverman, legal director of Gender Justice, which represented Cooper, said, “It’s a hugely important opinion. All of these policies you see where people are trying to exclude trans women, specifically, from public life, you can’t do that in Minnesota.” Braverman added, “[Transgender people are] being told, ‘You’re not good enough to have what other people have.’ It’s so harmful. A ruling like this sends the opposite message: This is Minnesota, we have our own laws.”
USA Powerlifting President Larry Maile, however, expressed concern that the ruling would force the organization to include trans women in the women’s division without any adjustments to ensure fairness. “For us, the more disturbing part is that if we are obligated to include trans women in the women’s division, without any adjustments or accommodations to assure fairness, then we have become an instrument of discrimination against, really, what is the largest protected class in the country, which is women,” Maile said.
As the legal and cultural battles continue, the issues at stake remain deeply divisive. On one side are those who see trans inclusion as a fundamental matter of civil rights and personal dignity; on the other, those who argue for the protection of women’s spaces and the integrity of female sport. With courts, organizations, and individuals taking starkly different positions, it’s clear that the struggle to reconcile these competing claims is far from over.
For now, institutions on both sides of the Atlantic are left to navigate a legal and ethical minefield, with the lives and rights of women and transgender people hanging in the balance.
