In a landmark ruling, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act refer strictly to biological sex.
The judgment, delivered by Lord Hodge, represents a legal development with broad implications for how sex and gender are interpreted in UK law. It follows a long-running legal challenge brought by the campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) against the Scottish Government, which had sought to include transgender women with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) in the legal definition of “woman” for public policy purposes. Lord Hodge stated:
“The unanimous decision of this court is that the definition of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”
But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.”
The case centred on the Scottish Government’s attempt to allow transgender women with GRCs to be counted within the 50 per cent female quota for public boards – a move originally upheld by the Scottish courts in 2022. However, this decision was overturned by the UK Supreme Court, which unanimously allowed FWS’s appeal.
In its 88-page judgment, the court stated that “the concept of sex is binary” within the context of the Equality Act. Justices Lord Hodge, Lady Rose, and Lady Simler agreed that while the Act does not use the word “biological,” its wording refers clearly to the physical and biological characteristics that distinguish men from women.
The justices further noted that including transgender women with GRCs in the definition of sex would “cut across the definition of the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way”.
The decision was immediately welcomed by gender-critical campaigners. For Women Scotland said they were “absolutely jubilant,” posting on X (formerly Twitter) that some supporters were in tears. Sex Matters, a campaign group that contributed to the legal arguments, also praised the outcome.
While the court’s decision limits the legal definition of “woman” to biological sex under the Equality Act, it emphasised that transgender individuals still retain significant legal protections. Lord Hodge clarified:
“The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.”
Jessica Keal, Associate at Simkins LLP, said:
“The decision of the Supreme Court is right at the heart of where several competing rights collide, meaning that there will always be groups who are disappointed by the outcome.
The transgender community has faced much upheaval lately with the publication of the Cass Review and the ban on the prescription of puberty blockers to children and young people, and today’s decision will be seen by many as another blow.
This ruling will have real implications for transgender women and their rights to use single-sex services and spaces, but it also impacts biological women who have fought hard to secure single-sex spaces where they feel safe.
Undoubtedly there will be further occasions such as this where the rights of transgender individuals compete with the rights of other protected groups, and a decision must be made as to how best to navigate this difficult area.”
