African trade ministers meet today over US tariffs affecting exports
Woman defined by biological sex under equality law by UK Supreme Court
Woman defined by biological sex under equality law by UK Supreme Court
By: Nii Ammui Fio | 4 mins read
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the term “woman” in equality legislation strictly refers to biological sex, not acquired gender—delivering a landmark judgment that may reshape how sex-based protections are interpreted across Britain.
In a unanimous decision, the court sided with advocacy group For Women Scotland, which had challenged the Scottish Government’s interpretation of the law allowing transgender women with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) to be legally counted as women in all settings.
Judge Lord Hodge, delivering the ruling, 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 cautioned against framing the judgment as a societal win for one group over another. “But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not,” Lord Hodge added. “The legislation gives transgender people protection, 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.”
The case dates back to a 2018 bill passed in the Scottish Parliament, which aimed to improve gender balance on public boards. For Women Scotland objected to the inclusion of trans women in the female category, arguing that such quotas should be based solely on biological sex.
Campaigners who brought the case responded with emotional celebrations outside the courtroom. For Women Scotland co-founder Susan Smith expressed gratitude to the justices.
“Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex,” she said. “Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the Supreme Court for this ruling.”
The Scottish Government had asserted that a GRC signified a full legal change of sex under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, but the judges disagreed, saying that interpreting “sex” in this way would undermine the definitions of “man” and “woman” as used in the Equality Act.
The ruling highlighted concerns that using a certificated sex approach could cause significant confusion in contexts like prisons, changing rooms, hostels, and women’s sports. It also raised potential issues for lesbian-only groups.
“The practical problems that arise under a certificated sex approach are clear indicators that this interpretation is not correct,” the judgment stated.
Reacting to the outcome, Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney noted 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. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.”
A spokesperson for the UK Government welcomed the clarity the ruling provides, especially for organisations managing sex-segregated services.
“Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government,” the spokesperson stated.
UK Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch also endorsed the decision, saying it validated the voices of women who had faced personal and professional backlash for defending the concept of biological sex.
“It’s a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious,” Badenoch said.
Acclaimed author J.K. Rowling echoed that sentiment in a post on social media, applauding the women behind the case: “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.”
However, the decision was met with dismay by some in the LGBTQ+ community. Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman criticised the ruling, calling it a setback for human rights.
“This is a deeply concerning ruling for human rights and a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society,” Chapman said. “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.”
Vic Valentine, who leads the advocacy group Scottish Trans, shared similar concerns, saying the organisation was “shocked” by the verdict.
“This judgement seems to suggest that there will be times where trans people can be excluded from both men’s and women’s spaces and services,” Valentine stated. “It is hard to understand where we would then be expected to go — or how this decision is compatible with a society that is fair and equal for everybody.”
The decision overturns a 2022 judgment by Lady Haldane, which had ruled that “sex” under the Equality Act could include acquired gender.
Holyrood’s earlier efforts to reform gender recognition laws, blocked by the UK Government, have since been dropped by Scottish officials.
