Campaigners for women’s rights in Scotland have launched a fresh legal challenge against the Scottish government, arguing that current policies on transgender pupils in schools and transgender prisoners are "in clear breach" of a recent Supreme Court judgment. The group, For Women Scotland, which earlier this year secured a landmark ruling on the definition of "woman" in the UK’s highest court, is now seeking to have certain Scottish government policies quashed and suspended, claiming they remain "inconsistent" with the law as clarified by the court.
Back in April 2025, the UK Supreme Court made headlines across the country when it ruled that the terms "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refer specifically to biological women and biological sex. According to BBC reporting, this decision followed a protracted legal battle initiated by For Women Scotland, who argued that sex-based protections under the Act should apply only to those born female. The Scottish government, however, had previously maintained that transgender individuals with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) were entitled to the same sex-based protections. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court sided with For Women Scotland, setting a precedent that has since prompted public bodies across the UK to review their gender policies.
Despite the Supreme Court’s clear ruling, For Women Scotland claims that Scottish government guidance on single-sex spaces in schools and prisons has not been updated accordingly. The group announced on August 17, 2025, that it had lodged an ordinary action for reduction—essentially a request to quash—these policies at Scotland’s Court of Session. Their application specifically targets rules allowing transgender pupils to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with, as well as prison guidelines that permit transgender women to be housed in the women’s estate provided they do not meet the "violence against women and girls" criteria and are not considered an "unacceptable risk of harm."
For Women Scotland’s frustration is palpable. In a statement to the press, the group declared, "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." According to The Guardian, the group is asking the court to issue a declarator that the school and prison guidance are unlawful and to suspend both policies in the meantime. They have given Scottish ministers 21 days to respond to the summons, warning that if the policies are not withdrawn within that period, the government will have to defend them in court.
The Scottish government, for its part, has declined to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings. A spokesperson told reporters, "It would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings." The silence, however, has done little to quell the controversy or reassure campaigners who feel the government is dragging its feet in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The policies under scrutiny are not minor administrative details, but rather touch on some of the most contentious and sensitive issues in the ongoing debate over sex and gender rights. The guidance for single-sex toilets in schools, for example, states that "where possible, young people should be able to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with." In practice, this has often meant that transgender pupils can use toilets that align with their gender identity rather than their biological sex. Meanwhile, prison guidelines allow a transgender woman to be admitted into the women’s estate so long as she does not meet the violence against women and girls criteria and there is no basis to suppose she poses an unacceptable risk to others housed there.
For Women Scotland argues that these policies are "inconsistent with the UK Supreme Court judgment of 16 April 2025." The group contends that maintaining them "is to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls," and insists that the law now requires a stricter, biology-based definition of sex in such contexts. Their legal filing, first reported by The Sunday Times Scotland, requests that both the school and prison guidance be quashed in their entirety, and that their implementation be suspended while the matter is before the court.
This is not the first time For Women Scotland has taken the government to court over the definition of "woman." The group previously challenged Scottish legislation that mandated 50% female representation on public boards, arguing that the inclusion of transgender women with GRCs undermined the intent of the law. That legal saga culminated in the Supreme Court’s April ruling, which supporters of the campaign group hailed as a "watershed for women." The decision has had ripple effects across the UK, prompting public bodies to review policies on toilets, changing rooms, and hospital wards. The Scottish Parliament, for example, has since designated male- and female-only toilets, though it has retained gender-neutral facilities alongside them. Other institutions are still considering how best to update their guidance and practical arrangements in light of the new legal landscape.
Yet, as the current legal action demonstrates, the process of aligning policy with the court’s interpretation of the law is far from complete. For Women Scotland’s latest move underscores the ongoing tension between advocates for sex-based rights and those supporting transgender inclusion. Supporters of the former argue that the law is now unambiguous and must be enforced accordingly, while those on the other side of the debate often emphasize the need for policies that respect the dignity and rights of transgender individuals.
For now, the Scottish government faces a 21-day countdown to respond to the legal action. Should it fail to withdraw the contested policies within that window, it will find itself defending them in open court—a prospect that promises to keep the issue squarely in the public eye. The outcome could have significant implications not only for Scotland’s schools and prisons, but also for the wider UK debate over gender, sex, and the meaning of equality under the law.
As the legal wrangling continues, many are watching to see whether this latest challenge will finally bring Scotland’s policies in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling—or whether the debate over sex and gender rights is destined to rumble on for years to come.
