On April 16, 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling that has significant implications for the definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex, effectively stating that transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are not legally recognized as women under the law. This ruling is the culmination of a long-standing legal battle initiated by the campaign group For Women Scotland, which argued that sex-based protections should only apply to individuals born female.
Judge Lord Hodge, delivering the court's judgment, emphasized that the ruling should not be interpreted as a triumph of one side over another. He stated, "The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex." He also reassured that the law continues to provide protections against discrimination for transgender individuals.
The ruling comes after years of heated debate surrounding transgender rights and women's rights, particularly in relation to single-sex spaces and services across Scotland, England, and Wales. The Scottish government had contended that individuals holding a GRC were entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women. However, the Supreme Court's decision has clarified that the Equality Act's provisions deal specifically with biological sex, not acquired gender.
For Women Scotland, the organization that brought the case, celebrated the ruling as a victory for women’s rights. Co-founder Susan Smith expressed gratitude, stating, "Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex." The ruling has been framed as a win for gender-critical feminist campaigners who argue that biological sex is immutable.
In contrast, LGBTQ+ rights groups have expressed deep concern regarding the implications of the ruling. Stonewall's chief executive, Simon Blake, described the decision as "incredibly worrying" for the trans community, emphasizing that it could lead to the exclusion of transgender individuals from participating in society. He noted, "It’s important to be reminded the court strongly and clearly re-affirmed the Equality Act protects all trans people against discrimination, based on gender reassignment, and will continue to do so."
Transgender activist Jasmine Isa Quereshi, 26, shared her perspective on the ruling, stating, "If you’re disappointed, you had an expectation it was going to be different." Quereshi, who does not have a GRC, acknowledged that while the ruling might seem to unite women in spaces, it ultimately silences trans women's voices. She reflected on the societal challenges faced by trans individuals, saying, "By default, we become activists. Because we exist outside of the normality."
First Minister John Swinney of Scotland accepted the judgment, stating on social media, "The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling." He added that protecting the rights of all individuals will be a priority moving forward.
The ruling has sparked a range of reactions from political leaders. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch hailed it as a "victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious," while also affirming that the struggle for women's rights is far from over. In contrast, Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman labeled the decision a "deeply concerning ruling for human rights," warning that it could lead to the erosion of protections for marginalized individuals.
The Supreme Court's decision has raised questions about the future of single-sex spaces, including those in hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs. The court stated that interpreting sex as "certificated" rather than "biological" would create confusion and undermine the protections afforded to women. The ruling has been positioned as a necessary clarification to ensure that sex-based rights are maintained.
As the implications of the ruling unfold, various advocacy groups are mobilizing to provide support and resources for the transgender community. The Good Law Project has urged individuals not to panic, emphasizing that protections against discrimination remain intact for transgender individuals despite the ruling.
In the wake of the ruling, former Labour MP Harriet Harman, who was involved in drafting the Equality Act 2010, stated that the judgment aligns with the original intent of the law. She remarked, "Single sex spaces for women are important & can exclude trans women but only where necessary." Meanwhile, Labour for Trans Rights criticized the Supreme Court’s decision as a result of persistent lobbying from anti-trans networks, calling it "hugely disappointing."
Joanna Cherry, a former SNP MP, expressed her sense of vindication following the ruling, stating that it necessitates a significant change across public sector policies. She remarked, "I think [Nicola Sturgeon] owes all of us, not just me, and more importantly the women of Scotland, an apology for criticizing my support for the rights of women and lesbians."
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a woman under the Equality Act has ignited a complex debate about gender identity, women's rights, and the protections afforded to both groups. As society grapples with the implications of this decision, the conversation surrounding transgender rights and biological sex will undoubtedly continue to evolve.
