Home
+
Legal experts say the ruling shows equality legislation might need to be urgently updated to ensure trans people are protected
Published : 16 Apr 2025, 07:49 PM
Britain's highest court ruled on Wednesday that only biological and not trans women meet the definition of a woman under equality laws, a landmark decision greeted with dismay by trans supporters but welcomed by the government as bringing clarity.
The much anticipated ruling centred 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.
Critics said that including a trans woman as a woman under the law could impinge on single-sex services for women such as refuges, hospital wards and sports. But transgender campaigners said that excluding them could lead to discrimination, especially over employment issues.
"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," Deputy President of the Supreme Court Patrick Hodge said.
"But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another - it is not."
Transgender rights have become a highly political issue, with some accusations that identity politics have been weaponised by the conservative right to attack minority groups, while others argue that liberal support for transgender people has infringed on the rights of biological women.
In the United States, legal challenges are underway after President Donald Trump issued executive orders that include barring transgender people from military service.
SCOTTISH GUIDANCE
Wednesday's British judgment followed legal action by a 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 said a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate was legally a woman. FWS, which was backed by lesbian rights groups, had lost its case in the Scottish courts, but the Supreme Court ruled in its favour.
"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.
Britain's Labour government said 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.
The Supreme Court said trans people - whether trans women or men - would not be disadvantaged by its decision as the Equality Act afforded them protection against discrimination or harassment.
Harry Potter author JK Rowling, a prominent gender-critical campaigner, was among those who welcomed the decision.
"It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK," Rowling said on X.
Trans rights supporters said the ruling had worrying implications.
"This is a deeply concerning ruling for human rights and a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society," said Maggie Chapman, from the Scottish Green Party.
"It could remove important protections and will leave many trans people and their loved ones deeply anxious and worried about how their lives will be affected and about what will come next."
Legal experts said the ruling showed equality legislation might need to be urgently updated to ensure trans people were protected.
"In the short-term this ruling has the power to create further division and increase tensions," said Phillip Pepper, employment partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau.
"However, it will offer long-term clarity for businesses which have been left to interpret ambiguous, contradictory legislation on their own until this point, potentially landing in hot water as a result."
