Campaign group For Women Scotland wins legal battle against Scottish Government's interpretation of anti-discrimination law
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the term "woman" in the Equality Act 2010 refers specifically to biological sex, not gender identity — a decision expected to have far-reaching consequences for public services, policymaking, and the rights of trans individuals across the UK.
The unanimous judgment came after women's rights campaign group For Women Scotland launched a legal challenge against the Scottish Government’s attempt to redefine the term to include trans women — individuals assigned male at birth who have transitioned and may hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
The case revolved around whether the Scottish Government could broaden the legal definition of “woman” in its public boards legislation to include trans women with a GRC. The court firmly rejected this interpretation, stating that such a move would be incompatible with the Equality Act 2010, which applies across England, Scotland, and Wales.
Lord Hodge, Deputy President of the Supreme Court, said:
“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 added that interpreting "sex" as "certificated sex" would lead to “heterogeneous groupings” and undermine the coherent application of the law.
The court concluded that protected characteristics under the Equality Act must reflect biological sex, not self-declared or legally recognised gender identity — a decision that excludes trans women with GRCs from sex-based protections designed for women.
Reactions and Impact
The ruling has been welcomed by sex-based rights campaigners and organisations advocating for single-sex services. Trina Budge, director of For Women Scotland, said:
“This is a victory for women and for clarity in law. Sex matters, and the court has rightly confirmed that.”
The UK Government also praised the judgment, stating that it provides “much-needed clarity” for providers of services such as hospitals, prisons, and sports bodies who rely on clear legal definitions to make decisions about access to single-sex spaces.
However, the decision has been met with disappointment and alarm by trans rights groups and LGBTQ+ advocates. Ellie Gomersall, a trans woman and Scottish Green Party member, said:
“I’m gutted to see this decision. It undermines two decades of progress in protecting trans rights.”
The charity Scottish Trans expressed concern that the ruling could lead to increased exclusion of trans women from public life, even when they hold full legal recognition of their gender through a GRC.
Broader Context
This ruling comes amid heightened tensions between the UK and Scottish Governments over gender recognition reform. Earlier attempts by Holyrood to make it easier for trans people to obtain a GRC were blocked by Westminster in 2023.
The case also touches on broader debates about how legal definitions of sex and gender affect real-world policy in areas such as healthcare, prisons, education, and competitive sport.
While the ruling does not strip trans individuals of protection under the Equality Act’s separate characteristic of “gender reassignment,” it limits the scope of that protection when it overlaps with sex-based rights.
What Next?
Legal experts suggest the decision could prompt widespread reviews of equality policies in public bodies, charities, and employers. Organisations offering women-only services may now be required to distinguish more clearly between sex and gender identity when drafting policy or making decisions about access.
It also places renewed pressure on policymakers to address how sex and gender are defined and protected in law — a debate that looks set to remain a flashpoint in the UK's cultural and political landscape.
Diversity Dashboard Newsroom