UK Supreme Court: Transgender Women are not 'Women' Under Equalities Law

UK Supreme Court Judges

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that transgender women who possess a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) are not legally defined as “women” under the Equality Act 2010, affirming that the term refers strictly to biological sex.

The judgment was delivered in response to a legal challenge from the women’s rights campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS), which contested the Scottish Government’s interpretation of the term “woman” in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The law, which aimed to ensure 50% female representation on public boards, had included transgender women with GRCs in its definition of women.

Susan Smith and Marion Calder, directors of 'For Women Scotland'

FWS argued that including trans women in the definition undermined sex-based protections and risked eroding the rights of biological women, particularly in relation to single-sex services and spaces. The group contended that “sex” in the Equality Act must refer exclusively to biological sex to maintain legal clarity and protect the integrity of women’s rights.

The Supreme Court, comprised of five judges, upheld this view. In delivering the court’s judgment, Lord Hodge stated that expanding the legal definition of “woman” to include individuals with a GRC would cause an “incoherent” interpretation of the law. He explained that such a redefinition would not only conflict with existing legal definitions of “man” and “woman” but also disrupt the application of sex-based rights and services, including those related to communal accommodations, healthcare services, and single-sex education institutions.

Activists celebrate after hearing the outcome of the Supreme Court's ruling

Lord Hodge emphasized that the ruling does not diminish the rights of transgender individuals, who remain protected under the Equality Act through the distinct characteristic of gender reassignment. However, he added that interpreting “woman” to include trans women with GRCs could undermine legal protections for same-sex attracted individuals and the operation of associations and services designed exclusively for biological women.

The ruling was welcomed by FWS and several advocacy groups, including the LGB Alliance and Sex Matters. Kate Barker, CEO of the LGB Alliance, described the decision as a “watershed” moment for lesbian rights, stating it affirms the legality of women-only spaces and associations. Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, hailed the judgment as a “victory for reality,” reinforcing that sex-based legal protections are grounded in biological truth, not documentation.

Susan Smith and Marion Calder, directors of 'For Women Scotland'

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) also acknowledged the ruling, highlighting its importance in addressing the challenges faced by individuals and organizations seeking to preserve single-sex services and protect same-sex attracted groups.

The legal dispute began in 2022 when a Scottish court ruled that including trans women in the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act exceeded the Scottish Parliament’s legal competence. Following the ruling, the Scottish Government removed the contested definition and issued revised statutory guidance aligning with the Equality Act and recognising individuals with a GRC as having the legal sex of a woman.

FWS challenged the revised guidance, maintaining that it improperly redefined “woman” beyond the scope permitted by law. Although their initial challenges were dismissed by the Court of Session in 2022 and 2023, FWS was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, where the matter was finally resolved.

Ruth Crawford KC, representing the Scottish Government, had argued that a person who becomes a woman via a GRC should enjoy the same legal protections as someone recorded female at birth. She cautioned that a ruling in FWS’s favour could mean trans women with GRCs would be legally considered male for life.

Following the ruling, calls have intensified for the UK Government to update and clarify all existing public sector guidance to ensure consistent application of the term “sex” as biological. Kemi Badenoch, Leader of the Opposition, praised the decision as a triumph for those who faced consequences for defending the definition of womanhood. Conservative shadow minister for women, Mims Davies, echoed these sentiments, urging immediate guidance revisions to protect women’s rights nationwide.

The Supreme Court's decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for future policy, public sector operations, and the legal recognition of sex and gender in the UK.