Faith Nyasuguta
In a landmark ruling on Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court unanimously determined that the legal definition of a “woman” under equality law refers specifically to someone born biologically female. The court sided with For Women Scotland (FWS), a women’s rights group that had challenged a Scottish law that expanded the definition of “woman” to include transgender women who have received gender recognition certificates.
Justice Patrick Hodge, delivering the judgment, stated that all five justices agreed that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act refer to biological sex and not gender identity. The decision clarifies that even if a transgender person is legally recognised as female through a gender recognition certificate, they are not considered a “woman” under the act for equality purposes.
“This does not remove protection from trans people,” the court noted, emphasizing that transgender individuals remain protected from discrimination under the category of “gender reassignment” within the Equality Act. Nonetheless, the ruling will likely have wide-reaching implications for how public policy is shaped around sex-based rights, single-sex spaces, and representation quotas.
The case originated from a 2018 Scottish law mandating 50 percent female representation on the boards of public institutions. The Scottish government included transgender women in its definition of “woman” for this purpose, but FWS argued that the law exceeded the powers granted to the Scottish Parliament. They maintained that the legislation effectively altered the UK-wide definition of sex without proper authority.
After Scottish officials issued updated guidance reinforcing that individuals with gender recognition certificates should be treated as women, FWS pursued legal action. Though initially rejected in 2022, they successfully appealed and brought the case before the UK’s highest court.
FWS director Trina Budge warned earlier that failing to distinguish between biological women and transgender women could undermine representation goals entirely. “Not tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise of 50 percent men, and 50 percent men with certificates, yet still lawfully meet the targets for female representation,” Budge said.
During Supreme Court hearings, FWS lawyer Aidan O’Neill argued that biological sex is an immutable state established before birth and that the legal definition should reflect that reality. “Our position is your sex is determined from conception in utero… It is an immutable biological state,” he told the panel of three male and two female judges.
Supporters of the ruling include author J.K. Rowling, who has long maintained that expanding trans rights should not come at the cost of rights based on biological sex. Rowling has reportedly donated tens of thousands of pounds to support For Women Scotland’s legal efforts.
However, the decision has sparked concern among human rights advocates. Amnesty International criticized the court’s interpretation, stating it could erode protections for transgender individuals. The organization submitted a court brief warning against a blanket exclusion of trans women from sex-based rights, arguing it would contradict human rights obligations. “A blanket policy of barring trans women from single-sex services is not a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim,” Amnesty stated.
The ruling brings legal clarity to a contentious issue, but it also deepens the divide between those prioritizing sex-based protections and those advocating for broader trans inclusion.
RELATED:
