In response to the UK Supreme Court’s ruling on the legal definition of “woman”
To say yesterday was a difficult day would be an understatement.
The UK Supreme Court determined that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means “biological sex”, excluding trans women with Gender Recognition Certificates from being recognised as women in key legal contexts.
This decision arose from a legal challenge by For Women Scotland against Scottish government guidance that included transgender women with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) under the definition of "woman" for purposes like public board representation and gender-based quotas.
This judgment has generated considerable fear within the transgender community, accompanied by a significant amount of misinformation propagated by anti-trans groups.
Let us be clear about three points:
- There is no change in the law. This judgment is about how “woman” is interpreted in the legal context of the Equality Act 2010.
- The Supreme Court did not rule on the definition of “woman”. That has not changed.
- Trans people still have the same legal protection from discrimination.
What will change
Ultimately with this decision, trans women with a GRC will no longer be considered “women” under the Equality Act 2010. The specifically affects how the term is used in laws about positive action, such as requiring certain number of women on public boards such as government bodies or executive committees. Trans women will no longer be considered “women” in these contexts.
What won’t change
The law. The Supreme Court was clear that this decision should not be weaponised against trans people, and that the law itself has not changed.
Trans people’s protections. Trans people are still protected from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010 under the Gender Reassignment characteristic. They continue to have legal access to single-sex spaces and services regardless of having a GRC or not. Anti-trans groups have suggested that this judgement means they can now blanket exclude trans women from these spaces. It does not. The law already permits such exclusions already, where a propionate means to achieve a legitimate aim can be demonstrated.
The definition of “woman”. As outlined in paragraph 2 of its judgement, the court says, “It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain 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 [Equality Act] 2010.” (https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf)
Trans women are still, and always have been, women.
Trans men are still, and always have been, men.
Just today (17 April 2025) the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said in light of the judgment, the NHS should be updating its guidence on the provison of single-sex services. As mentioned above, the law in relation to accessing spaces on the basis of gender identity did not change yesterday. What the EHRC is suggesting is, in our opinion, unlawful.
What should we do next
Check in on the trans and non-binary people in your life. They might be feeling vulnerable and frightened and can use all the support we can give them.
Combat any misinformation spread by anti-trans groups and individuals with the facts outlined above.
Plan and mobilise. With Pride season fast approaching, we need to reclaim Pride as a protest and use this time as an opportunity to march for our trans siblings. Centre your Pride events around direct action and education.