Britain’s highest court ruled on Wednesday that only biological women, and not trans women, meet the definition of a woman under equality laws. This landmark decision has been met with concern by trans supporters but welcomed by the government as providing clarity.
The highly anticipated ruling centred on whether a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate (GRC), a formal document granting 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, thereby clarifying legal ambiguity. Transgender campaigners expressed concern that the decision could lead to discrimination, particularly in employment.
“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,” stated Deputy President of the Supreme Court Patrick Hodge.
“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 politicized issue in Britain and other parts of the world. Some critics argue that the conservative right has weaponized identity politics to attack minority groups, while others contend that liberal support for transgender people has infringed on the rights of biological women.
In the United States, legal challenges are ongoing following President Donald Trump’s issuance of executive orders that include barring transgender individuals from military service.
Scottish Guidance
Wednesday’s judgment in Britain followed legal action by a campaign group, For Women Scotland (FWS), against guidance issued by the devolved Scottish government that accompanied a 2018 law intended 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 supported 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 the court.
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 affirmed.
Illustrating the ruling’s potential impact, a Scottish health organization being sued by a nurse it suspended over her reaction to a trans woman using a female changing room acknowledged the judgment.
“We will now take time to carefully consider the judgment and its implications,” said a spokesperson for NHS Fife.
Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, who has been a vocal gender-critical figure, 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.
The Supreme Court clarified that trans people – whether trans women or men – would not be disadvantaged by its decision, as the Equality Act provides them with protection against discrimination or harassment.
Trans rights campaigners expressed serious concerns about 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 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 it as “another attack on the rights of trans people to live our lives in peace.”
Legal experts suggested that the ruling indicated equality legislation might need urgent updating to ensure trans people are protected.
Phillip Pepper, employment partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, commented that the court’s decision could “create further division and increase tensions” in the short term.
“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,” he concluded.
