The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of “woman” under the country’s Equality Act 2010 refers specifically to “biological sex.” Despite the clarification, the court maintained that transgender individuals remain protected against discrimination under the same law.
Handing down the unanimous decision, Justice Patrick Hodge, speaking for the panel of five judges, stated: “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 added that the Act continues to safeguard trans individuals, explaining: “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.”
The case stemmed from a legal challenge brought by For Women Scotland, an anti-trans organisation, against the Scottish Government. At the heart of the dispute was a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament aimed at improving gender balance on public sector boards. The Scottish Government had interpreted this to include trans women with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) within the quota for women.
For Women Scotland argued that sex should be defined by what is assigned at birth and described it as an “immutable biological state.” Conversely, the Scottish Government contended that the 2004 Gender Recognition Act changed a person’s legal sex “for all purposes” once a GRC was obtained.
Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney, leader of the centre-left Scottish National Party and a vocal supporter of trans rights, responded to the decision: “The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling.”
Vic Valentine, head of Scottish Trans, strongly criticised the decision, saying it “reverses twenty years of understanding on how the law recognises trans men and women with Gender Recognition Certificates.”
“The judgment seems to have totally missed what matters to trans people – that we are able to live our lives and be recognised in line with who we truly are,” Valentine said.
He expressed concern that the ruling might lead to trans people being excluded from both men’s and women’s spaces: “It is hard to understand where we would then be expected to go – or how this decision is compatible with a society that is fair and equal for everybody.”
Scottish Trans also posted a message on social media urging calm: “There will be lots of commentary coming out quickly that is likely to deliberately overstate the impact that this decision is going to have on all trans people’s lives. We’ll say more as soon as we’re able to. Please look out for yourselves and each other today.”
The ruling has sparked concern beyond the UK, with trans advocates in the United States warning of its wider implications. British anti-trans rhetoric, often referred to as “TERFism,” has influenced American discourse, particularly through prominent figures such as Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling.
American anti-trans movements have frequently cited British legal decisions, as well as controversial developments such as the Cass Review and restrictions on gender-affirming care, in advocating for similar policies in the US.
Independent trans journalist Erin Reed described the decision as “extremely devastating news for transgender people in the United Kingdom.”
“So much of what we face in the United States has shared roots in that country, and this Supreme Court decision there will make people far less free,” she wrote on Bluesky, adding: “Crackdowns on trans people are international, not limited to borders.”
