The UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled on April 16, 2025, that the legal definition of “woman” under the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, siding with the campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) in a landmark case against the Scottish government.
The court clarified that “sex” and “woman” denote biological sex, not gender identity or certificated sex under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, rejecting the Scottish government’s argument that trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) should be legally recognized as women for equality purposes.
The ruling, delivered by Lord Hodge, emphasized that this interpretation ensures coherence in single-sex spaces, such as changing rooms, refuges, and sports facilities, and protects provisions like pregnancy and maternity rights, which apply exclusively to biological women. The court noted that transgender individuals remain protected against discrimination under the Equality Act through the characteristic of gender reassignment.
The court ruled that “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex at birth, not the sex recorded on a GRC. Thus, trans women with a GRC are not legally considered “women” for Equality Act purposes, such as accessing single-sex spaces or certain protections exclusive to biological women (e.g., maternity rights).
The ruling upholds the legality of excluding trans women from women-only spaces (e.g., domestic violence shelters, prisons) if based on biological sex, provided the exclusion is proportionate and justified under the Equality Act’s exemptions.
FWS, supported by figures like JK Rowling, celebrated the decision as a victory for clarity and women’s rights, while trans rights groups, such as Scottish Trans and Stonewall, expressed concern over its implications, fearing it could limit trans women’s access to certain protections and spaces.
The UK government welcomed the ruling, stating it reinforces the protection of single-sex spaces. Scottish First Minister John Swinney accepted the judgment, pledging to assess its implications while prioritizing the rights of all.
The decision could significantly impact how sex-based rights are applied across the UK, particularly in areas like public services, employment, and single-sex provisions, though the court cautioned against viewing it as a triumph of one group over another.
Gender recognition laws in UK
The UK Supreme Court’s ruling on April 16, 2025, clarified that the legal definition of “woman” under the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not gender identity or certificated sex under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA). Below is an overview of gender recognition laws in the UK, particularly in light of this ruling, based on available information:
Gender Recognition Act 2004 (UK)
The GRA allows individuals to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to legally change their gender for most purposes.
Applicants must be 18 or older, provide evidence of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, demonstrate they have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years & declare intent to live permanently in that gender.
Effect of a GRC
Updates birth certificates to reflect the acquired gender.
Grants legal recognition of the acquired gender for most purposes (e.g., marriage, pensions).
However, the Supreme Court ruling clarified that a GRC does not change a person’s “sex” under the Equality Act for purposes like single-sex spaces or sex-based rights.
Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill (2022)
Scotland proposed reforms to simplify the GRC process by removing the need for a gender dysphoria diagnosis, reducing the living period to three months, and lowering the age limit to 16.
The UK government blocked this bill in 2023 using Section 35 of the Scotland Act, citing concerns about its impact on UK-wide equality laws.
The Supreme Court case arose from For Women Scotland’s challenge to Scottish guidance that treated trans women with GRCs as women under the Equality Act, leading to the court’s ruling against this interpretation.
Scotland must align its policies with the ruling. First Minister John Swinney has indicated a review of implications, but no new legislative proposals have been confirmed as of April 16, 2025.
