UK Supreme Court Upholds ‘Biological’ Definition of Woman Under Equality Law
In a landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the legal definition of a “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers specifically to biological sex, not gender identity. The verdict concludes a long-standing legal battle brought by the campaign group For Women Scotland against the Scottish government.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling
Lord Hodge, delivering the judgment, clarified that while the ruling affirms biological sex as the basis for sex-based protections, it does not diminish the protections afforded to transgender individuals under the law. Trans people remain protected under the Equality Act via the characteristic of “gender reassignment,” including protection from direct and indirect discrimination and harassment.
The case challenged the inclusion of transgender women—those who have transitioned with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)—within legal definitions that affect the provision of single-sex spaces and services, such as in prisons, hospital wards, sports, and support groups.
Reaction from Campaigners and Politicians
Campaigners from For Women Scotland celebrated the decision as a victory for sex-based rights. Co-founder Susan Smith declared that “women are protected by their biological sex” and hailed the ruling as reinforcing safety and clarity for single-sex spaces.
Author JK Rowling, a vocal advocate of sex-based rights, praised the ruling, acknowledging the efforts of the women behind the case for protecting rights across the UK.
Meanwhile, Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney and the UK government both acknowledged the ruling, with Swinney vowing to engage on its implications and the UK government affirming its commitment to safeguarding single-sex spaces.
Concern Among Trans Advocates
The decision has sparked alarm among trans rights activists. The Scottish Trans Alliance expressed concern, stating that the ruling undermines two decades of legal understanding and could leave trans people without access to spaces aligned with their gender identity.
MSP Maggie Chapman called the ruling “deeply concerning” and warned it could erode protections for marginalized groups.
Legal and Social Implications
The judges emphasized that interpreting sex as based on legal certification rather than biology would create inconsistencies and complications in law. They noted it could disrupt protections for lesbians and impact the operation of single-sex services.
This ruling redefines how sex-based rights are interpreted under UK law, potentially reshaping legal and institutional policies across sectors.
Background
The legal challenge stemmed from a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament to promote gender balance on public boards, which included transgender women in female quotas. For Women Scotland challenged this, arguing the law diluted sex-based rights. Although Scottish courts initially sided with ministers, the Supreme Court reversed that stance, emphasizing the need for clarity and consistency.
As gender and sex-based rights remain a sensitive and contested issue, this decision is likely to have widespread effects—legally, politically, and culturally—across the UK.