Judges at the UK Supreme Court have reached a unanimous decision that under equalities law, a woman is defined by biological sex. This decision is the outcome of an extensive legal battle that could significantly affect how sex-based rights are applied throughout Scotland, England, and Wales.
The court ruled in favor of the campaign group For Women Scotland, which challenged the Scottish government’s stance that sex-based protections should be exclusive to individuals born female.
Judge Lord Hodge emphasized that the decision should not be seen as a victory for one group over another, highlighting that the law continues to protect transgender individuals from discrimination.
The Scottish government contended that transgender people holding a gender recognition certificate (GRC) should receive the same sex-based protections as biological women.
The Supreme Court needed to interpret the 2010 Equality Act, which is enforced across Britain.
Lord Hodge clarified that the main issue was the definition of “woman” and “sex” in the legislation.
He announced to the court, “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.”
“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.”
He further stated that the law affords transgender individuals protections against direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and discrimination due to gender reassignment in their acquired gender.
After the verdict, campaigners from For Women Scotland celebrated outside the courtroom, displaying emotions of relief and joy.
The Equality Act guards against discrimination based on various characteristics, including ‘sex’ and ‘gender reassignment.’
In London, the Supreme Court judges were asked to define “sex” in the law—whether it pertains to biological sex or legal, “certificated” sex as outlined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The Scottish government argued that the 2004 legislation clearly states that acquiring a GRC equates to a legal change of sex “for all purposes.”
For Women Scotland advocated for a straightforward interpretation of man and woman as “immutable biological states.”
Outside the Supreme Court, For Women Scotland’s co-founder Susan Smith commented, “Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex.”
“Sex is real, and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women, and we are enormously grateful to the Supreme Court for this ruling.”
First Minister John Swinney recognized the judgment, noting it clarified the interaction between two significant legislative pieces.
He committed to considering the ruling’s implications, emphasizing that protecting everyone’s rights will guide their subsequent actions.
A Scottish government representative affirmed their good faith in handling the legal proceedings, adding that the Equality and Human Rights Commission would update its guidelines based on the judgment.
A UK government spokesperson welcomed the clarity the ruling brought, reassuring that it would enhance confidence among women and service providers in maintaining single-sex spaces.
‘Deep Concern’
Harry Potter author JK Rowling posted on social media: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.”
Conversely, Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman expressed deep concerns about the ruling’s impact on human rights, fearing it might strip away crucial protections for transgender individuals.
For Women Scotland had previously cautioned that a decision favoring the Scottish government could affect the management of single-sex facilities and services.
Transgender advocates feared the ruling could weaken their existing protections against discrimination.
Vic Valentine from Scottish Trans expressed dismay, noting the ruling could potentially exclude transgender individuals from both male and female spaces and services.
The controversy includes issues such as the placement of transgender individuals in sex-specific facilities and related legal challenges.
