The United Kingdom’s highest court has ruled that the terms "woman" and "sex" refer to a "biological woman and biological sex" under British equality laws, a landmark decision greeted with concern by supporters of transgender rights but welcomed by the government as bringing clarity.
The highly anticipated ruling on Wednesday, April 16, 2025, centered on whether a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate (GRC), a formal document giving legal recognition of someone’s new gender, is protected from discrimination as a woman under Britain’s Equality Act. The decision confirms that single-sex services for women such as refuges, hospital wards, and sports can exclude trans women, clearing up legal ambiguity.
“The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘women’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” said Deputy President of the Supreme Court Patrick Hodge. “But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another – it is not.”
Transgender rights have become a polarizing political issue in the UK and other parts of the world. Some critics say the conservative right has weaponized identity politics to attack minority groups, while others argue that support for transgender people has infringed on the rights of biological women. In the United States, legal challenges are underway after former President Donald Trump issued executive orders that include barring transgender people from military service.
The judgment in Britain followed legal action by the campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) against guidance issued by the devolved Scottish government that accompanied a 2018 law designed to increase the proportion of women on public-sector boards. The guidance stated that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate was legally a woman. FWS, which was backed by lesbian rights groups, lost its case in the Scottish courts, but the Supreme Court ruled in its favor.
“Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case: that women are protected by their biological sex, that sex is real and that women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women,” Susan Smith, co-director of FWS, told cheering supporters outside court.
The ruling has immediate implications for single-sex spaces. Britain’s Labour government stated that the Supreme Court’s decision would bring clarity for hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs. “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government,” a government spokesperson said.
In an example of the ruling’s potential impact, a Scottish health organization that is being sued by a nurse it suspended over her response to a trans woman using a female changing room said it had noted the judgment. “We will now take time to carefully consider the judgement and its implications,” a spokesperson for NHS Fife said.
Despite the ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that trans people – whether trans women or men – would not be disadvantaged by its decision, as the Equality Act affords them protection against discrimination or harassment. Trans rights campaigners, however, expressed concerns over the ruling's implications.
“Today is a challenging day, and we are deeply concerned at the widespread, harmful implications of today’s Supreme Court ruling,” a consortium of LGBT+ organizations, including the prominent group Stonewall, said in a statement. “We need to take the time to digest the full implications of the ruling and to understand what this will mean on both legal and practical levels … it is important to be reminded that the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Equality Act protects trans people against discrimination.”
Trans woman and campaigner Ellie Gomersall described the ruling as “another attack on the rights of trans people to live our lives in peace.” Legal experts indicated that the ruling showed equality legislation might need urgent updates to ensure trans people were adequately protected.
Following the ruling, many public bodies will be reviewing their gender policies, but the extent of day-to-day changes remains uncertain. The Supreme Court’s ruling provides a clearer framework for discussions regarding transgender athletes in sports, where heated debates over their participation in women’s categories have been ongoing. Athletics, cycling, and aquatics have already banned transgender women from competing in women’s events, while the English Football Association recently introduced stricter rules allowing transgender women to compete as long as their testosterone levels are kept below a certain threshold.
In the aftermath of the ruling, the Scottish government has stated it will need to work with the UK government to understand the full implications of the judgment. Trans rights campaigners are expected to examine the ruling closely to decide on their next steps, possibly pushing for changes to the Equality Act.
As the dust settles on this landmark decision, the ramifications are likely to resonate across various sectors, from healthcare to sports and beyond. The ruling not only affects the legal definition of gender but also highlights the ongoing tension between the rights of transgender individuals and those of biological women, suggesting that this debate will continue to shape discussions around equality in the UK.
