For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers

In 2002, the European Court of Human Rights issued two judgements finding that the UK was breaching human rights by failing to legally recognize the acquired gender of trans people. This led to the passage of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which allowed trans people to legally change their gender through a Gender Recognition Certificate with support of two doctors and evidence of living in their acquired gender for 2 years.{{Cite web |title=The Supreme Court ruling gives clarity - but now comes the difficult part |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74z04j23pwo |access-date=21 April 2025 |website=BBC |language=en }}

In 2018, Scotland passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act, a law that requires public authorities with boards (i.e. a statutory board or board of directors) to encourage participation by women. To meet the "gender representation objective", public boards must aim to have 50% of their non-executive members be women. When filling a vacancy in the board, there must be multiple candidates, including at least one woman and one non-woman. The legislation as assented contained a definition of "woman" which was inclusive of trans women, by including any person who held the protected characteristic of gender reassignment as defined by the Equality Act 2010, and is "living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female."{{Cite web |last=Kagoo |first=Isabel |date=12 March 2024 |title=Defining Woman - The Contentious Legal Battle Over the Definition of 'Woman' in Scotland |url=https://www.standrewslawreview.com/post/defining-woman-the-contentious-legal-battle-over-the-definition-of-woman-in-scotland |access-date=17 April 2025 |website=StAndrews Law Review |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=10 March 2018 |title=Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2018/4/2018-03-10 |access-date=17 April 2025 |website=legislation.gov.uk |archive-date=26 August 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240826000058/https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2018/4/2018-03-10 |url-status=live }}

The gender-critical advocacy group For Women Scotland (FWS) filed a request for judicial review, arguing that the definition of "woman" under the Equality Act 2010 referred to "biological sex" and not gender. The Inner House ruled in favour of the Scottish Ministers, stating that trans women who have been issued a full gender recognition certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 were considered "women" under the Equality Act 2010.{{Cite web |date=16 February 2024 |title=Row over definition of 'woman' in Scotland to be considered by Supreme Court |url=https://www.thenational.scot/news/24125114.scottish-row-definition-woman-head-supreme-court/ |access-date=18 April 2025 |website=The National |language=en |archive-date=16 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240216200409/https://www.thenational.scot/news/24125114.scottish-row-definition-woman-head-supreme-court/ |url-status=live }} In February 2022, following an appeal by FWS, the ruling was overturned by the Court of Session. Lady Dorrian ruled that the legislation "conflates and confuses two separate and distinct protected characteristics", that being a trans woman was not explicitly considered a protected characteristic by the Equality Act, and that the Scottish government could not define protected characteristics because equal opportunities are a reserved matter to the UK Parliament.{{Cite news |date=18 February 2022 |title=Campaigners in court win over 'woman' definition |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-60435954 |access-date=17 April 2025 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}}{{Cite web |date=16 April 2025 |title=For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) |url=https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0042 |access-date=18 April 2025 |publisher=Supreme Court of the United Kingdom |language=en}}

As a result of this ruling, the Act was amended on 19 April 2022 to remove the definition of "woman". Accompanying statutory guidance stated that "woman" was to be defined as per the Equality Act 2010. However, the guidance also stated that per the Gender Recognition Act 2004, people in possession of a full GRC were to be recognized by their "acquired gender" for the purposes of the Equality Act. This meant that trans women with a full GRC would be considered a "woman" under the Equality Act, and trans women without a GRC were excluded from the definition.{{Cite web |title=For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) - UK Supreme Court |url=https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/press-summary/uksc-2024-0042 |access-date=16 April 2025 |website=supremecourt.uk |language=en |archive-date=16 April 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250416093412/https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/press-summary/uksc-2024-0042 |url-status=live }}{{Cite news |date=1 November 2023 |title=Campaigners lose definition of 'woman' appeal bid |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67289999 |access-date=17 April 2025 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}}

In July 2022, FWS filed for a second judicial review, arguing that the statutory guidance fell outside of the devolved competence of the Scottish government. In December 2022, Lady Haldane ruled in favour of the Scottish Ministers, stating that the updated statutory guidance was lawful, that the definition of "sex" per the Equality Act 2010 was "not limited to biological or birth sex", and that the definition "includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex".{{Cite news |date=13 December 2022 |title=Government wins legal case over definition of woman |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63956604 |access-date=17 April 2025 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB |archive-date=17 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241217130550/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63956604 |url-status=live }}

In October 2023, FWS filed for another appeal, arguing that the ruling conflated sex and gender in a manner that was "unworkable and impractical". On 1 November 2023, the case was thrown out, but with the option for it to be taken to the Supreme Court. Lady Dorrian wrote that "in our view it is clear that the intention was that on receipt of a Gender Recognition Certificate, a person's sex was to be that of their acquired gender, man or woman" and that "we do not accept the submissions of the reclaimer that this somehow turns the provisions on their head, or diminishes the protection available to individuals against discrimination on the grounds of sex".

FWS stated that it was "hugely disappointed" in the decision, as the court had "ruled that women's protections under law may—in some cases—include men who have obtained a GRC".{{Cite news |date=3 October 2023 |title=Appeal over Court of Session ruling on definition of 'woman' |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66997684 |access-date=17 April 2025 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}} An FWS director argued that the earlier ruling would allow public boards to consist of "50 per cent men, and 50 per cent men with certificates" while still complying with the gender representation objective. The group would bring the case to Supreme Court after a crowdfunding campaign; of the £300,000 raised, £70,000 was donated by author J. K. Rowling.{{Cite web |date=26 November 2024 |title=UK's highest court set to rule on definition of a woman |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/supreme-court-trans-women-definition-b2653770.html |access-date=17 April 2025 |website=The Independent |language=en |archive-date=28 November 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241128001526/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/supreme-court-trans-women-definition-b2653770.html |url-status=live }}{{Cite news |last=Brooks |first=Libby |date=16 April 2025 |title=How UK court definition of 'woman' could affect sex-based rights |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/16/how-uk-court-definition-of-woman-could-affect-sex-based-rights |access-date=16 April 2025 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}

The Supreme Court allowed written interventions from four parties, with two additionally being permitted to make oral submissions.{{Cite web |last=Murphy |first=Will |date=2025-04-16 |title=UK Supreme Court Decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers |url=https://cornerstonebarristers.com/uk-supreme-court-decision-in-for-women-scotland-ltd-v-the-scottish-ministers/ |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=Cornerstone Barristers |language=en-GB}}{{Cite web |title=Defining 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 — Inside the For Women Scotland v the Scottish Ministers appeal |url=https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal-hub/articles/defining-sex-in-the-equality-act-2010-inside-the-for-women-scotland-v-the-scottish-ministers-appeal/ |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=Law Society of Scotland |language=en}} The interveners were the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Amnesty International, Sex Matters, and a group of three campaigning organisations comprising LGB Alliance, The Lesbian Project, and Scottish Lesbians (referred to as "the lesbian interveners").{{Cite web |date=2024-10-11 |title=Scottish Lesbians to intervene in For Women Scotland's Supreme Court appeal |url=https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/scottish-lesbians-to-intervene-in-for-women-scotlands-supreme-court-appeal |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=Scottish Legal News |language=en}} Sex Matters and the EHRC were additionally permitted to make oral arguments at the hearing. A request from the Good Law Project to intervene on behalf of two transgender legal experts - Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle - was declined.{{Cite news |last=Brooks |first=Libby | date=2024-03-28 |title=Transgender judge seeks leave to intervene in UK court case over legal definition of 'woman' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/28/transgender-judge-seeks-leave-to-intervene-in-uk-court-case-over-legal-definition-of-woman |access-date=2025-04-24 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}{{Cite news |last=Riedel |first=Samantha |date=2024-11-27 |title=U.K. Supreme Court Begins Case Deciding Whether Trans Women Can Be Legally Considered “Female” |url=https://www.them.us/story/uk-supreme-court-gender-recognition-act-woman-legal-definition |access-date=2025-04-25 |language=en-US}}

The case was heard at the Supreme Court from 26 to 27 November 2024. For Women Scotland argued that "sex" in the Equality Act always referenced "biological sex" and that the Scottish Government's position was wrong in law, while the Scottish Government argued that "woman" in the Equality Act includes a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the acquired gender of female.

Sex Matters' intervention argued that the Equality Act's "gender reassignment" definition was a novel one unique to the Equality Act and that neither party was correct in its interpretation.The lesbian interveners made submissions regarding the effect on the rights of same-sex oriented women. The EHRC argued that the difficulties in interpreting the Equality Act should be resolved by parliament. Amnesty International's submission highlighted the human rights principles at stake.

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment after the case was argued in November 2024. The court found a unanimous decision that the terms "man", "woman", and "sex" in the Act were "always intended" to refer to "biological sex" and not "certificated sex", and it concluded that any other interpretation would cause the Act to be incoherent and impracticable to operate.{{Cite web |date=15 April 2025 |title=Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo |access-date=16 April 2025 |website=BBC News |language=en-GB |archive-date=16 April 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250416175515/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo |url-status=live }}

The term "biological" did not appear in the original Equality Act and the judges did not define it, stating that "biological characteristics" corresponding to the "plain and unambiguous words ['man' and 'woman'] are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation"{{Cite news |last=Lewis |first=Sophie |date=2025-04-23 |title=The UK's Anti-Trans Ruling Is a Defeat for All Women |url=https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-trans-ruling-analysis-uk/ |access-date=2025-04-25 |language=en-US |issn=0027-8378}} The ruling did not mention intersex people.{{Cite news |last=Lawless |first=Jill |date=April 16, 2025 |title=How did the UK Supreme Court define a woman and what happens now? |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/uk-supreme-court-define-woman-now-120873270 |access-date=2025-04-25 |work=ABC News |language=en}}

It found that the Scottish Government's guidance that "a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate is legally a woman" is invalid and incorrect.{{Cite news |last1=Scott|first1=Geraldine|last2=Manning|first2=Sanchez|last3=Sanderson|first3=Daniel |date=16 April 2025 |title=Organisations 'must revisit policies' after Supreme Court trans ruling |url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/supreme-court-rules-trans-women-biological-sex-vxqt9b722 |access-date=16 April 2025 |website=www.thetimes.com |language=en}} The court found that under this definition, trans women could be excluded from female only spaces, including changing rooms and homeless shelters;{{Cite web |date=17 April 2025 |title=Supreme Court ruling just the latest curb on trans rights worldwide |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/transgender-women-rights-supreme-court-law-b2734997.html |access-date=18 April 2025 |website=The Independent |language=en}} it also found that trans men could be excluded from female spaces in the same manner as trans women, "because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance."{{Cite news |last=Bland |first=Archie |date=17 April 2025 |title=What a landmark supreme court ruling on biological sex does – and doesn't – mean |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/17/first-edition-equality-act-ruling-supreme-court |access-date=18 April 2025 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}

{{quote|We are aware that this is a long judgment. It may assist therefore if we summarise our reasoning. […]

(v) Section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 (Gender Recognition Act 2004) disapplies the rule in section 9(1) of that Act where the words of legislation, enacted before or after the commencement of the GRA 2004, are on careful consideration interpreted in their context and having regard to their purpose to be inconsistent with that rule. It is not necessary that there are express words disapplying the rule in section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 or that such disapplication arises by necessary implication as the legality principle does not apply (paras 99–104).

(vi) The context in which the EA 2010 (Equality Act 2010) was enacted was therefore that the SDA 1975 (Sex Discrimination Act 1975) definitions of "man" and "woman" referred to biological sex and trans people had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. […] |paragraph 265 of the judgment}}

Lord Hodge also re-affirmed that the ruling does not affect the Equality Act 2010's protections from discrimination by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, acknowledging that trans people were a vulnerable population that "struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity". He warned that the judgment should not be seen as "a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another."{{Cite web |date=16 April 2025 |title=What does Supreme Court definition of a woman ruling mean? |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqx4z2ln2j3o |access-date=16 April 2025 |website=BBC News |language=en-GB}}{{Cite web |last=Perry |first=Sophie |date=16 April 2025 |title='We'll get through this together': Reactions to Supreme Court's trans ruling |url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/16/supreme-court-ruling-reaction-trans/ |access-date=16 April 2025 |website=PinkNews |language=en-US}} The judges also insisted that despite their decision, trans people can still bring sex discrimination cases "not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender".{{Cite web |last=Perry |first=Sophie |date=2025-04-16 |title=Four key takeaways from the Supreme Court's 'definition of a woman' ruling |url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/16/supreme-court-trans-woman-ruling-takeaways/ |access-date=2025-04-23 |website=PinkNews |language=en-US}} The judgement also does not change or invalidate the Gender Recognition Act or the process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate.{{Cite web |date=16 April 2025 |title=U.K. Top Court Says Trans Women Are Not Legally Women Under Equality Act |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/world/europe/uk-supreme-court-woman-definition-trans.html |access-date=21 April 2025 |website=New York Times}}{{Cite web |title=What does the transgender rights ruling mean? |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/16/what-does-the-transgender-rights-ruling-mean/ |access-date=21 April 2025 |website=The Telegraph |language=en }}{{cite web |date=17 April 2025 |title=What Supreme Court's gender ruling means for workplaces, hospitals and sports |url=https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-definition-uk-supreme-court-hospitals-sports-083314305.html?guccounter=1 |access-date=21 April 2025 |website=Yahoo News}}

The judges did not not rule more broadly on whether trans women are women in other contexts, stating that it was not the court's role to "[adjudicate] on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word 'woman' other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010."{{Cite web |date=16 April 2025 |title=The supreme court didn't rule on the definition of 'a woman' – this is what its judgment does mean |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/16/supreme-court-definition-woman-judges-law#:~:text=Except%20it%20hasn%27t.%20As%20the%20court%20says%2C,the%20provisions%20of%20the%20[Equality%20Act]%202010.%E2%80%9D |access-date=21 April 2025 |website=The Guardian}}

The Scottish government stated that it had "acted in good faith in our interpretation of both the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010" and "was guided by the published guidance of the Equality and Human Rights Commission", and it affirmed that the country would remain "fully committed to protecting everyone's rights, to ensure that Scotland remains an inclusive country".

A spokesperson for the British Transport Police said that trans women in their custody would be strip searched by male officers.{{Cite web |title=Trans women to be strip searched by male transport police after court ruling |url=https://news.sky.com/story/trans-women-to-be-strip-searched-by-male-transport-police-after-court-ruling-13350577?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter |access-date=18 April 2025 |website=Sky News |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Staff |first=Al Jazeera |title=Trans women aren't legally women: What the UK Supreme Court ruling means |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/17/trans-women-arent-legally-women-what-the-uk-supreme-court-ruling-means |access-date=18 April 2025 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}}

A spokesperson for the national Labour Party government stated that the ruling had brought "clarity and confidence" for women and service providers, adding that "single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government". Labour Minister for Women and Equalities Bridget Phillipson said that trans women should use male facilities, and listed toilets, hospitals, shelters, and rape crisis centers as examples.{{Cite web |date=17 April 2025 |title=Campaigners warn of Supreme Court ruling impact on trans people |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8q55d27lgo |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250417122622/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8q55d27lgo |archive-date=17 April 2025 |access-date=17 April 2025 |website=BBC News |language=en-GB}}{{Cite web |date=16 April 2025 |title=Westminster's tortuous battle with the gender question |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cglx1zg93j0o |access-date=18 April 2025 |website=www.bbc.com |language=en-GB}}{{Cite web |date=2025-04-22 |title=Trans women should use male toilets, equalities minister says |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/phillipson-trans-women-supreme-court-toilets-b2737112.html |access-date=2025-04-22 |website=The Independent |language=en}} The Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that "a woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear", adding that "I actually welcome the judgment because I think it gives real clarity".{{cite news |author1=Aubrey Allegretti |author2=Geraldine Scott |title=Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women |url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/trans-women-men-toilets-b8gt6l22c |access-date=22 April 2025 |work=The Times |date=22 April 2025}}{{cite web |last1=McKiernan & Zeffman |title=Starmer does not believe trans women are women, No 10 says|date=22 April 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crldey0z00ro |website=bbc.co.uk |publisher=BBC |access-date=18 April 2022}} LGBT+ Labour stated they were "deeply disappointed" by the judgement, that it "risks undermining trans people's access to vital services, workplaces, and spaces where they have long been included" at a time when transgender people are "already facing rising levels of hate crime, hostility, and misinformation", and that they stand "in full solidarity" with the trans community.{{Cite web |date=April 16, 2025 |title=LGBT+ Labour's Statement following the Supreme Court Judgment on FWS v The Scottish Ministers |url=https://www.lgbtlabour.org.uk/fws-judgment-statement |access-date=2025-04-25 |website=LGBT+ Labour |language=en}}

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch described the judgment as a "victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious", and declared that "the era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end."{{Cite web |date=17 April 2025 |title=Labour Minister Says Tories Should Apologise For Past Pro-Trans Women Stance |url=https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-minister-says-tories-apologise-083708730.html |access-date=17 April 2025 |website=Yahoo News}}

Maggie Chapman of the Scottish Greens condemned the judgment, saying "not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions in our society". Her comments were described as "disgraceful" by Akua Reindorf KC, a Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, while Joanna Cherry called for Chapman to resign.{{cite news |last1=Learmonth |first1=Andrew |title=Maggie Chapman accuses Supreme Court of 'bigotry' |url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25104940.maggie-chapman-accuses-supreme-court-bigotry/ |access-date=22 April 2025 |work=The Herald |date=22 April 2025}} Chapman's comments were denounced by the Faculty of Advocates, which described them as failing to "respect the rule of law", and "constitute an egregious breach of Ms Chapman's duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary". In a letter to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee—of which Chapman is deputy convenor — Roddy Dunlop KC called her comments "outrageous" and said that they created a risk of danger to members of the Supreme Court, and called for an apology and for Chapman to consider her position. Chapman stood by her comments and refused to apologise, saying that institutions and laws reflect transphobia and prejudice in society.{{cite news |date=22 April 2025 |title=Lawyers criticise MSP's attack on gender ruling |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx25xzy4eggo |access-date=23 April 2025}} A motion brought by Conservative MSP Tess White to have Chapman removed from the Committee over the issue was unsuccessful.{{Cite web |date=2025-04-29 |title=Maggie Chapman survives attempt to remove her from equalities committee |url=https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,maggie-chapman-survives-attempt-to-remove-her-from-equalities-committee |access-date=2025-04-29 |website=Holyrood Website |language=en}}

The Welsh Government released a statement accepting the decision of the Supreme Court, noting that the judgment did not remove protection from trans people, and reaffirming an ongoing commitment to equality and inclusion.{{Cite web |date=2025-04-29 |title=Written Statement: Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act 2010 (29 April 2025) {{!}} GOV.WALES |url=https://www.gov.wales/written-statement-supreme-court-ruling-equality-act-2010 |access-date=2025-04-29 |website=www.gov.wales |language=en}}

Kishwer Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), stated on Today that the ruling would be incorporated into its upcoming code of practice for women-only spaces enforceable by law. Falkner warned that "single-sex services like changing rooms must be based on biological sex", trans women would be prohibited from competing in women's sport, and stated that the NHS would "have to change" its policy of treating transgender patients in accordance with their declared gender. These were described as an "overrreach" by trans rights campaigners.{{Cite news |last1=Carrell |first1=Severin |last2=Davies |first2=Caroline |date=2025-04-17 |title=Trans activists accuse UK equalities chief of 'overreach' for suggesting bans |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/17/trans-activists-accuse-uk-equalities-chief-overreach-suggesting-bans |access-date=2025-04-20 |work=The Guardian |issn=0261-3077}}{{Cite web |date=17 April 2025 |title=Public bodies face 'enforcement' of biological sex policies, watchdog warns |url=https://www.thenational.scot/news/25097168.changes-toilets-changing-rooms-womens-sport-revealed/ |access-date=18 April 2025 |website=The National}}{{Cite web |last=Billson |first=Chantelle |date=17 April 2025 |title=NHS warned it will be 'pursued' if it doesn't change gender policies |url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/17/nhs-will-be-pursued-if-it-doesnt-change-gender-policies-says-equalities-watchdog-boss/ |access-date=18 April 2025 |website=PinkNews}} However, when asked if GRCs have now been rendered worthless, Falkner said: "We don't believe they are. We think they're quite important." Falkner also suggested that trans rights groups should use their advocacy to campaign for unisex spaces (such as bathrooms), as it wasn't a legal requirement for facilities to have gender-specific spaces.

Melanie Field, a former civil servant who oversaw the drafting and passage of the original Equality Act 2010 who later became the executive director of the Equality and Human Rights Commission until 2023, said that the act was drafted explicitly with the goal of granting transgender people with GRCs the same legal status as cisgender counterparts, with granting transgender women with GRCs the same protections as cisgender women "the clear premise" of the bill. She stated "there are likely to be unintended consequences of this very significant change of interpretation from the basis on which the legislation was drafted and considered by parliament".{{Cite news |last1=Carrell |first1=Severin |last2=Brooks |first2=Libby |date=2025-04-18 |title=Court ruling on 'woman' at odds with UK Equality Act aim, says ex-civil servant |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant |access-date=2025-04-19 |work=The Guardian |issn=0261-3077}}{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court ruling on definition of a woman 'at odds' with goals of UK Equality Act, ex-civil servant tells LBC |url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/uk-politics/definition-of-woman-supreme-court-equality-act-transgender-gender/ |access-date=2025-04-19 |website=LBC}} Harriet Harman said that the ruling of the Supreme Court gave effect to the intention of those who drafted it (which included herself).{{cite web |date=16 April 2025 |title=UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t |access-date=20 April 2025 |website=BBC News |publisher=BBC}}

On April 25, the EHRC released updated guidance to this effect, declaring trans women to be "biological men" and trans men to be "biological women". The guidance applied to any school, workplace, sporting body, publicly accessible service (such as restaurants, shops, hospitals, or shelters), and any association of 25 people or more. The guidance stated that while trans women and trans men should be barred from facilities matching their gender, they can also be restricted from facilities matching their sex, and that only providing mixed-sex facilities could constitute discrimination against women. It did, however, say that trans people should not be left without any facilities to use. The guidance also stated that transgender men and women should be barred from gay men's spaces and lesbian spaces respectively.{{Cite web |title=An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment {{!}} EHRC |url=https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment |access-date=2025-04-25 |website=www.equalityhumanrights.com}}{{Cite news |last=Grammaticas |first=Damian |date=2025-04-26 |title=EHRC issues interim guidance on single-sex spaces |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyw9qjeq8po |access-date=2025-04-26 |work=BBC News}}{{Cite news |last=O'Thomson |first=Jess |date=April 28, 2025 |title=On sex, the Supreme Court has brought only doubt |url=https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/identity/equality/69803/supreme-court-judgment-sex-trans-rights |access-date=2025-04-28 |work=Prospect Magazine |language=en}}

The EHRC interim guidance was described by transgender campaigners as a "bigoted attempt to segregate trans people in public spaces", with campaign groups warning about forced outing and harmful effects on trans lives, and stating it could be in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.{{Cite news |last=Cooke |first=Millie |date=2025-04-28 |title=Equalities watchdog under pressure to scrap new guidance on single sex spaces |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trans-supreme-court-single-sex-spaces-toilets-b2740729.html |access-date=2025-04-28 |work=The Independent}} The Green Party co-leaders issued a statement that the guidance was "ill-considered and impractical" and "could put trans people at risk of discrimination in the workplace, and is overly prescriptive in a way that seems to fly in the face of the tolerance that we value in this country". They stated "it doesn't seem right that a lesbian organisation or space that wants to include trans women should be prevented from doing so".{{Cite news |last=Cooke |first=Millie |date=2025-04-27 |title=Government will ban trans employees from toilets that reflect their gender |url=https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/politics/trans-supreme-court-ruling-gender-pat-mcfadden-b2740252.html |access-date=2025-04-28 |work=The Independent}}{{Cite news |last=Morton |first=Becky |date=2025-04-27 |title=Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o |access-date=2025-04-28 |work=BBC News}}

The British Medical Association's resident doctors passed a motion at their annual conference which condemned "the Supreme Court ruling defining the term 'woman' with respect to the Equality Act as being based on 'biological sex', which they refer to as a person who was at birth of the female sex, as reductive, trans and intersex-exclusionary and biologically nonsensical." They described it as a "scientifically illiterate" ruling, "made without consultation with relevant experts and stakeholders, that will cause real-world harm to the trans, non-binary, and intersex communities in this country."{{Cite news |last=Billson |first=Chantelle |date=2025-04-28 |title=BMA resident doctors condemn Supreme Court's 'scientifically illiterate' trans ruling|url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/28/british-medical-association-condemns-supreme-courts-scientifically-illiterate-trans-ruling/ |access-date=2025-04-28 |work=PinkNews}}{{Cite news |last=Searles |first=Michael |date=2025-04-28 |title=Doctors brand Supreme Court trans ruling 'scientifically illiterate' |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/28/doctors-brand-supreme-court-trans-ruling-illiterate/ |access-date=2025-04-28 |work=The Telegraph |issn=0307-1235}}

Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland welcomed the ruling, stating "Today, the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, women are protected by their biological sex - that sex is real", adding that "We're just really glad common sense prevailed".{{cite news |last1=McArdle |first1=Tom |title=For Women Scotland crack open champagne as they celebrate victory |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/16/supreme-court-rule-trans-women/ |access-date=22 April 2025 |work=Daily Telegraph |date=16 April 2025}} Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, said that "We're really proud [that they] thanked us for our cogent argument", concluding that "Everyone is going to have to pay attention to this, this is from the highest court in the land. It's saying sex in the Equality Act is biological sex. Self ID is dead."{{cite news |last1=McArdle |first1=Tom |title=Self-ID is dead, declare gender-critical campaigners |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/16/supreme-court-rule-trans-women/ |access-date=22 April 2025 |work=Daily Telegraph |issue=16 April 2025}} Speaking on the exclusion of trans men from women's spaces, she said "Not being allowed into the mens by rule does not mean you have the right to go into the ladies" and "That may seem unfair, but these are life choices people make. If you make extreme efforts to look like a man don't be surprised if you are denied entrance to ladies". Kate Barker, chief executive of the LGB Alliance, stated that "the ruling confirms that the words 'gay' and 'lesbian' refer to same-sex sexual orientation and makes it absolutely clear that lesbians wishing to form associations of any size are lawfully entitled to exclude men—whether or not they possess a GRC".

File:Transgender Rights Protest in Aberdeen (4).jpg in Aberdeen on 20 April 2025]]

Pro-LGBTQ groups considered the ruling to be a potential setback for transgender rights in the UK; Stonewall CEO Simon Blake stated that the organisation "shares the deep concern at the wide implications of the ruling", and considered it "incredibly worrying" for the trans community and its supporters, but that it would "continue its work with the Government and parliamentarians to achieve equal rights under the law for LGBTQ+ people", and that "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." TransActual director Jane Fae told The Washington Post that they feared the ruling could result in "total exclusion and segregation" for trans women, and that "the number of people I have come across on social platforms, on forums, etc., saying 'How do I go on? I am in tears, I'm in pieces. I am shattered. I am broken', that seems to be a pretty much a unanimous reaction."{{cite news |date=17 April 2025 |title=Transgender women in Britain fear ruling could place toilets, sports and hospitals off limits |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/04/17/transgender-rights-uk-supreme-court/d64f9198-1ba2-11f0-9160-306c35f9b3a8_story.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250417160903/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/04/17/transgender-rights-uk-supreme-court/d64f9198-1ba2-11f0-9160-306c35f9b3a8_story.html |archive-date=17 April 2025 |access-date=21 April 2025 |work=Washington Post}} Amnesty International UK stated that "it would take time to analyze the full implications. There are potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment."

Writing in The Independent, Good Law Project founder Jolyon Maugham criticised the lack of testimony from either trans individuals or advocacy groups in the proceedings, noting in the case of the latter that they likely did not apply to be heard "[because] they knew from bitter experience what legal proceedings involve. They mean punishment beatings in the right-wing press, that the Charity Commission is likely to investigate, that their staff will face threats of violence and that it may well kill off the organisation altogether." He stated that trans legal experts Stephen Whittle and Victoria McCloud applied to be heard but "without even giving reasons, the Supreme Court flatly refused to accept their application to be heard. As a result, this appeal was left with not even one trans person giving evidence." He argued that "the decision to shut out from the hearing the people most closely affected by it made the decision weaker", and that the ruling was "the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling."{{Cite web |last=Maugham |first=Jolyon |date=2025-04-16 |title=We left it to the Supreme Court to decide 'what a woman is' – they chose wrong |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trans-supreme-court-women-verdict-b2734476.html |access-date=2025-04-25 |website=The Independent |language=en}}

Victoria McCloud announced an intention to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that it failed to hear the human rights arguments from individuals, and stating that the judgment "has left me two sexes at once, which is a nonsense".{{Cite web |date=2025-04-29 |title=Trans former judge to challenge Supreme Court's gender ruling |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qw2149yelo |access-date=2025-04-29 |website=BBC News |language=en-GB}}

Over the Easter long weekend of 18–20 April, protests against the ruling were held in towns and cities throughout the UK.{{cite news |last1=Billson |first1=Chantelle |date=18 April 2025 |title=Protests against trans Supreme Court ruling to be held across UK this weekend |url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/18/trans-protest-protests-uk-what-the-trans-supreme-court/ |access-date=20 April 2025 |work=PinkNews}} Thousands gathered for a rally at London's Parliament Square on 19 April, organized by a group of 24 pro-LGBTQ groups.{{cite news |last1=Tapper |first1=James |date=19 April 2025 |title='One hell of a turnout': trans activists rally in London against gender ruling |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/19/trans-people-rally-london-gender-ruling-supreme-court |access-date=20 April 2025 |work=The Observer}} Seven statues were vandalised during the London protests, including the statue of former Union of South Africa prime minister Jan Smuts (which was spray painted with the message "Trans rights are human rights"), and the statue of women's suffrage activist Millicent Fawcett (which had "Fag rights" written onto the banner it was holding).{{cite news |last1=Grew |first1=Tony |date=20 April 2025 |title=Damage to statues investigated after trans protest |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkx78zlm4po |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250420113543/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkx78zlm4po |archive-date=20 April 2025 |access-date=20 April 2025 |work=BBC News}}{{cite news |author1=Tom McArdle |author2=Dominic Penna |author3=Daniel Martin |author4=Ruth Hallows |date=20 April 2025 |title=Nelson Mandela statue among seven vandalised during trans protest |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/20/nelson-mandela-statue-among-seven-vandalised-trans-protest/ |access-date=20 April 2025 |work=Daily Telegraph}}

In May, fourteen national LGBTQ+ charities including Stonewall and the LGBT Consortium sent a letter to the prime minister requesting a meeting, saying the ruling had created "confusion and a significant lack of clarity", upended the understanding of the Equality act creating "a legal framework that simply cannot uphold the dignity, protection and respect of trans people", and represented "a genuine crisis for the rights, dignity and inclusion of trans people in the UK".{{Cite news |last=Brooks |first=Libby |date=2025-05-02 |title=LGBTQ+ charities warn of ‘genuine crisis’ for trans people after UK ruling |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/02/lgbtq-charities-warn-genuine-crisis-trans-people-uk-ruling |access-date=2025-05-02 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}

In May, more than 520 historians, including Caroline Dodds Pennock, sign an open letter against the Supreme Court's decision, the guidance published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the government. They declare “no government that orchestrates persecution against a minority group, as this government aims to, will be looked on kindly by history”.{{Cite web |last=Hansford |first=Amelia |date=2025-05-02 |title=Warning from historians over government's treatment of trans people |url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/05/02/historians-trans-rights-attacks/ |access-date=2025-05-02 |website=PinkNews {{!}} Latest lesbian, gay, bi and trans news {{!}} LGBTQ+ news |language=en-US}}

J. K. Rowling, who had donated £70,000 to For Women Scotland in support of the case, made a series of posts on Twitter celebrating 16 April as "TERF VE Day".{{cite web |date=18 April 2025 |title='Harry Potter' author JK Rowling faces backlash to anti-trans comments |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/04/18/jk-rowling-anti-trans-controversy/83161361007/ |access-date=18 April 2025 |website=USA Today}}

Meanwhile, the slogan “Protect The Dolls” - taken from a T-shirt designed and worn by Conner Ives in support of trans rights - quickly became what GQ Magazine described as “a rallying cry” among a wide array of actors, models, musicians, and artists in support of the rights of trans women.{{Cite web |last=Chang |first=Mahalia |date=2025-04-25 |title=The Story Behind Pedro Pascal's 'Protect the Dolls' Shirt |url=https://www.gq.com/story/connor-ives-protect-the-dolls-t-shirt-interview |access-date=2025-04-25 |website=GQ |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |date=2025-04-24 |title=Conner Ives Wants You to Actually Protect the Dolls |url=https://www.elle.com/fashion/a64578247/conner-ives-protect-the-dolls-t-shirt-2025/ |access-date=2025-04-25 |website=ELLE |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |date=2025-04-23 |title=Pedro Pascal's 'Protect The Dolls' T-Shirt Is Fashion Activism At Its Finest |url=https://graziadaily.co.uk/fashion/news/conner-ives-protect-the-dolls-t-shirt-meaning/ |access-date=2025-04-25 |website=Grazia |language=en}}

Irish actress Nicola Coughlan announced that she would hold a fundraiser for the trans rights charity Not A Phase, matching donations up to £10,000. The campaign had raised over £70,000 by 18 April 2025.{{cite news |date=18 April 2025 |title=Nicola Coughlan Raised Over £70,000 for Trans Rights Following U.K. Court Ruling |url=https://www.them.us/story/nicola-coughlan-bridgerton-star-trans-rights-uk-court-ruling |access-date=21 April 2025 |work=them.us}}

Performing arts union Equity stated it was "deeply concerned" by the ruling, and called for other trade unions to "stand in solidarity with those affected by the judgment and to defend trans women and men in the workplace and all walks of life." General secretary Paul W. Fleming stated that Equity would be "urgently regrouping to ensure we defend and advocate for trans artists, and others affected."{{Cite web |title=Thousands demonstrate for trans rights |url=https://www.lrd.org.uk/news/thousands-demonstrate-trans-rights |access-date=2025-04-25 |website=LRD |language=en}}

On 23 April 2025, an open letter was addressed to the UK arts and culture sector, calling for it to "meet this moment with bravery and solidarity", amid the ruling and the growing number of hate crimes targeting the trans community. It stated that "cultural conversations are hugely important to how people are perceived and treated in society, and it is paramount that trans visibility, representation and protection be an ongoing and sustained commitment for all arts organisations going forward, with quantifiable efforts to promote trans voices and stories." The letter was signed by over 1,300 writers across the British literature and screenwriting industries, including Michaela Coel, Russell T Davies, and Alice Oseman.{{Cite news |date=2025-04-24 |title=Michaela Coel among writers expressing solidarity with the trans community |url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/24/uk-supreme-court-ruling-trans-open-letter/ |access-date=2025-04-24 |work=The Pink News |language=en-US}}

Australia's sex discrimination commissioner Anna Cody condemned the ruling, stating that "Human rights belong to everyone. Trans and gender diverse people should be safe, respected and legally recognised".{{cite web |title='Not the laws of Australia': Sex discrimination chief reacts to UK ruling on definition of a woman |date=17 April 2025 |url=https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/not-the-laws-of-australia-sex-discrimination-chief-reacts-to-uk-ruling-on-definition-of-a-woman/tkwxvjnj7 |website=SBS News |access-date=21 April 2025}}

Following the ruling, a spokesperson for Ireland's Equality Minister, Norma Foley reassured trans people in Ireland that the ruling would not impact them, saying "It is important to note that the UK's Equal Status Act is not equivalent to the Irish Equality Acts, with separate grounds of discrimination and different wording in both pieces of legislation."{{cite web |title=Irish law will protect transgender people from discrimination following landmark court ruling in UK |url=https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/irish-law-will-protect-transgender-people-from-discrimination-following-landmark-court-ruling-in-uk/a1837431527.html |website=Irish Independent |access-date=25 April 2025}}

• Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill
• Executive Order 14168{{snd}}American executive order aiming to restrict recognition of gender identity by the federal government
• Tickle v Giggle
• Goodwin v United Kingdom

{{reflist}}

{{portal|law|United Kingdom}}

• {{wikisource-inline|For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (2025, UKSC)|For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers|single=true}}
• [https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2024/Equality%20and%20Human%20Rights%20Commission%E2%80%99s%20written%20submission%20to%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20appeal%20of%20For%20Women%20Scotland%20v%20Scottish%20Ministers.docx Written submission of the Equality and Human Rights Commission]
• [https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/UKSC24-42-Sex-Matters-Written-Intervention.pdf Written submission of Sex Matters]
• [https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2024-11/UKSC%202024.0042%20Written%20Intervention%20-%20Amnesty%20International%20%28as%20filed%29.pdf?VersionId=vAan9v7XZcPctjLYOcu9ZXS1NANvBHfc Written submission of Amnesty International]
• [http://lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024-10-22-Written-Submissions-of-Scottish-Lesbians-Lesbian-Project-and-LGB-Alliance.pdf Written submission of LGB Alliance, The Lesbian Project and Scottish Lesbians]

Category:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases

Category:2025 in LGBTQ history

Category:2025 in United Kingdom case law

Category:April 2025 in the United Kingdom

Category:Transgender case law in the United Kingdom

Category:Equality rights