The UK Supreme Court recently ruled that “woman” refers to individuals born biologically female, explicitly excluding transgender women from this definition. This decision arose from a dispute between a feminist group, For Women Scotland, and the Scottish government, focusing on the implications for women’s rights and single-sex spaces.
Following the ruling, women’s rights advocates celebrated outside the court, calling it a significant win for the protection of female-only spaces. Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, emphasised that gender is fundamentally tied to biological sex, asserting that “everyone knows what sex is and you can’t change it.” The five judges stated that this interpretation of sex allows for the exclusion of transgender women from certain groups and facilities reserved for women, such as changing rooms and shelters.
Justice Patrick Hodge clarified that the ruling does not strip trans individuals of legal protections against discrimination, which remain intact under the UK Equality Act. However, the decision stirred controversy, especially among trans rights advocates. The Scottish Trans campaign group expressed disappointment, claiming the ruling undermines their rights and hinders legal protections established by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
The case originated from a Scottish law mandating that public bodies must ensure 50% female representation on their boards, allowing, under previous definitions, transgender women to be included. The Supreme Court’s ruling means only those biologically female can count towards this quota, maintaining that redefining “sex” to include gender recognition certificates disrupts the legal coherence of the terms “man” and “woman.”
Opposition to the ruling has been vocal, with public figures and activists warning that this could exacerbate discrimination against transgender individuals. Prominent figures like Maggie Chapman, a Scottish Parliament lawmaker, called it a “huge blow” for human rights, asserting that the ruling targets already marginalised groups.
Meanwhile, supporters of the decision, including the UK government, claim it clarifies women’s rights and the legal definitions necessary for maintaining sex-segregated services. For Women Scotland received backing from notable figures, including author J.K. Rowling, who stated that the ruling protects the rights of women and girls across the UK.
While Scotland’s government has accepted the judgment, it continues to navigate its implications. First Minister John Swinney stated that protecting the rights of all individuals remains a priority in their considerations. Critics, including human rights organisations like Amnesty International, argue that excluding transgender women from sex-based protections contravenes broader human rights commitments. The ongoing debate highlights the complex intersection of gender identity, women’s rights, and legal definitions in contemporary society.