Transgender pupils and adults across Scotland and the wider United Kingdom are facing an increasingly fraught landscape following a series of legal and policy changes that, critics say, are having a profound and often negative impact on their daily lives. At the heart of this issue is a recent UK Supreme Court ruling from April 2025 that has redefined the legal meaning of "sex" under equality laws—an interpretation now rippling through schools, public spaces, and the lived experiences of transgender people from Glasgow to London.
On October 1, 2025, the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), which represents over 80 percent of the country’s teaching staff, sounded the alarm about the wellbeing of transgender pupils in Scottish schools. According to a report published by PinkNews, teachers have observed that transgender students are deliberately limiting their food and drink intake to avoid using school toilets, spaces where they risk being outed, harassed, or otherwise made to feel unsafe. This behavior, educators warn, is a direct response to new guidance issued by the Scottish Government on September 29, 2025, which mandates that all school facilities—including toilets and changing rooms—be separated strictly on the basis of biological sex, defined as the sex recorded at birth.
The new guidance was drafted to bring Scotland’s policies into compliance with the UK Supreme Court’s April decision, which clarified that the terms “sex” and “woman” in the 2010 Equality Act refer solely to biological sex. The ruling, as reported by Reuters, means that transgender women are legally considered male and transgender men are legally considered female for the purposes of accessing gender-specific facilities, from school bathrooms to hospital wards and domestic violence refuges.
Jenny Gilruth, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, emphasized the government’s commitment to supporting all pupils. “The Scottish Government respects the rights of everybody. I want every pupil to be able to reach their potential and every pupil deserves our support to do that. Our guidance means that all of their individual needs will be respected,” she said, as quoted by PinkNews. Gilruth added, “In addition, the guidance makes clear that councils should give careful consideration to the individual needs of transgender pupils in light of the school context and school community.”
Yet many educators and advocates remain unconvinced that these measures go far enough to protect vulnerable students. Andrea Bradley, general secretary of the EIS, acknowledged the government’s “welcome acknowledgement that inclusion and wellbeing remain a priority in principle,” but expressed deep reservations about the practical effects. “It stresses the right of all young people to experience privacy, safety, dignity and respect and is clear that education authorities and schools should consider the needs of transgender pupils and consult with them and their families to plan any changes—including seeking legal advice where there are any proposed changes to existing arrangements for individual learners,” Bradley stated. However, she added, “Transgender learners are limiting their food and liquid intake so as to not risk having to use the facilities at school and thereby risk being ‘outed’.”
The EIS is particularly concerned that the new guidance leaves too much discretion to individual schools and local authorities, which could result in a patchwork of protections—and, potentially, a “state of exceptionalism for transgender students, potentially resulting in isolation and a differential educational experience from their peers.” Bradley concluded, “Unfortunately, the guidance falls short of providing the clarity schools, teachers, parents and young people so urgently need. Decisions will be left up to individual local authorities and schools while the guidance fails to address how significant concerns about the health, safety and wellbeing of transgender pupils will be addressed if pupils cannot use facilities in accordance with their gender identity.”
These concerns are not limited to Scotland. Across the UK, the Supreme Court’s ruling and subsequent guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) have sparked a wave of policy changes in public and private sectors. The EHRC’s interim guidance, for example, has advised that transgender people should be barred from using facilities and services designed for the gender they live as, including toilets and hospital wards. According to Reuters, this has led organizations such as the Football Association to bar transgender women from competing in women’s soccer in England, and the British Transport Police to require same-sex searches in custody to be conducted according to a detainee’s biological sex.
The human cost of these changes is evident in the stories of transgender individuals like Nate Rae, a 33-year-old transgender man and science communicator who grew up in a small Scottish town before moving to London. Rae described to Reuters how the legal shift has upended his sense of safety: “It’s almost like it’s been made legal to harass trans people,” he said. “I’ve got to factor in things that I’d never had to factor in before. Where can I go? Where am I safe?”
Rae, who only began medically transitioning last year, often still uses women’s bathrooms because he feels he is still largely perceived as female. Since the ruling, however, he has been told several times that he cannot use certain bathrooms and has even been called “disgusting” when using a female toilet. On one occasion, someone approached him to ask: “Do you know there are kids here?”
For many in the transgender community, the ruling has led to a palpable sense of exclusion. A report released in August by the rights group TransActual, cited by Reuters, found that some transgender people have planned to leave the country, concealed their identities, avoided public spaces like hospitals, felt outed at work, or withdrawn from social life altogether. Young people, in particular, are feeling the pressure. “Every young trans person I’ve spoken to is terrified,” Rae said, adding that many now question: “Am I going to be able to live the life I want to live as the person I want to be?”
Supporters of the new legal interpretation argue that it brings much-needed clarity and protection for biological women, particularly in sensitive spaces such as hospitals, prisons, and domestic violence refuges. The British government has stated that the judgment “brought clarity and a clear position to underpin gender policies.” The EHRC, for its part, maintains that its guidance is both legally accurate and clear, emphasizing that laws remain in place to protect transgender individuals from discrimination and harassment.
Critics, however, contend that the guidance is unnecessarily restrictive and harmful. Keyne Walker, strategy director for TransActual, argued that the EHRC’s interim guidance is already having a “dire effect” and that its interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment could have been far less “extreme.”
While the debate continues in parliament and in communities across the country, the reality for many transgender people is one of increased vigilance, anxiety, and, in some cases, self-imposed limitations on daily life. As the Scottish and UK governments grapple with how best to balance competing rights and obligations, the lived experiences of transgender individuals—whether in the classroom or the wider world—remain at the center of a contentious and deeply personal national conversation.
With policies still evolving and public opinion sharply divided, the future for transgender rights and protections in the UK is anything but settled. For now, the voices of those most affected continue to call for understanding, clarity, and above all, dignity in the face of growing uncertainty.
