Supreme court ruling brings 'clarity and confidence', says government spokesperson
The supreme court ruling on the definition of a woman under the Equality Act brings “clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs”, a government spokesperson has said, reports the PA news agency.
Reacting to the supreme court ruling, a government spokesperson said:
We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.
This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.
This blog will be closing shortly. Here is a summary of the day’s developments:
The UK supreme court has ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, in a victory for gender critical campaigners.
Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimouslythat the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs). In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, their decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.
It could have far wider ramifications by leading to much greater restrictions on the rights of transgender women to use services and spaces reserved for women, and spark calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.
Lord Hodge told the court the Equality Act (EA) was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate. That affected policy-making on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said.
Hodge urged people not to see the decision “as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”. He said all transgender people had clear legal protections under the 2010 act against discrimination and harassment.
Gender critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, celebrated outside the supreme court in London, alongside other campaigners, after the ruling was announced.
A government spokesperson said on Wednesday that the supreme court ruling on the definition of a woman under the Equality Act bought “clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs”. The spokesperson said: “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”
Maya Forstater, a gender critical activist who helped set up the campaign group Sex Matters, which took part in the supreme court case by supporting For Women Scotland, said the decision was correct: “We are delighted that the supreme court has accepted the arguments of For Women Scotland and rejected the position of the Scottish government. The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not to paperwork.”
Kemi Badenoch described the supreme court ruling as a “victory”. The leader of the Conservative party said: “Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in law either. This is a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.” The leader of the Scottish Tories called the supreme court decision a “victory for women across the United Kingdom”. Russell Findlay hailed the decision, which confirmed that the definition of woman in the 2010 Equality Act refers to biological women, as an “abject humiliation for the SNP”.
Trans rights campaigners urged trans people and their supporters to remain calm about the decision. The campaign group Scottish Trans said on social media that they’d “urge people not to panic”, while LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall has said there was “deep concern at the widespread implications” of the court ruling, which it said is “incredibly worrying for the trans community”. Amnesty International UK ruling as “disappointing” with “potentially concerning consequences for trans people”.
The Scottish Greens described the supreme court ruling as “deeply concerning for human rights”. The party said it would “continue to stand with trans people and resist culture war being waged against them”.
Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which had intervened in the case to support the Scottish government’s stance, said it would need time to fully interpret the ruling’s implications. However, the commission was pleased it had dealt with its concerns about the lack of clarity around single-sex and lesbian-only spaces.
Amnesty International UK described the supreme court ruling as “disappointing” with “potentially concerning consequences for trans people”.
Chief executive Sacha Deshmukh said:
The outcome of today’s judgment is clearly disappointing. It is a long and complex judgment and we will take time to analyse its full implications.
There are potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment.
The ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, as well as other provisions under the Equality Act.
Amnesty intervened in this case to remind the court that legal gender recognition is essential for trans people to enjoy the full spectrum of rights each of us is entitled to, including safety, health and family life.
LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall has said there is “deep concern at the widespread implications” of the court ruling, which it said is “incredibly worrying for the trans community”.
Chief executive Simon Blake said:
It’s important to be reminded the court strongly and clearly re-affirmed the Equality Act protects all trans people against discrimination, based on gender reassignment, and will continue to do so.
He said Stonewall will “continue its work with the government and parliamentarians to achieve equal rights under the law for LGBTQ+ people”.
The gender critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, said the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female.
Maya Forstater, a gender critical activist who helped set up the campaign group Sex Matters, which took part in the supreme court case by supporting For Women Scotland, said the decision was correct:
We are delighted that the supreme court has accepted the arguments of For Women Scotland and rejected the position of the Scottish government.
The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not to paperwork.
We’d urge people not to panic – 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.
Ellie Gomersall, a trans woman in the Scottish Green party, called on the UK government to change the law to entrench full equality for trans people.
Gomersall said:
I’m gutted to see this judgment from the supreme court, which ends 20 years of understanding that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate are able to be, for almost all intents and purposes, recognised legally as our true genders.
These protections were put in place in 2004 following a ruling by the European court of human rights, meaning today’s ruling undermines the vital human rights of my community to dignity, safety and the right to be respected for who we are.
Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).
In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, their decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.
Celebrations outside the supreme court in London on Wednesday after the ruling. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA
It could have far wider ramifications by leading to much greater restrictions on the rights of transgender women to use services and spaces reserved for women, and spark calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.
Lord Hodge told the court the Equality Act (EA) was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.
That affected policy-making on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said.
In a verbal summary of the decision, he said:
Interpreting sex as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of man and woman in the EA and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way. It would create heterogeneous groupings.
As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination, and especially those relating to pregnancy and maternity and to protection from risks specifically affecting women, can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.
The prime minister and Scottish first minister must “make sure that the law is obeyed” after today’s supreme court ruling, a former Scottish MP has said.
Joanna Cherry KC, the SNP’s former shadow home secretary who lost her seat in last year’s general election, said she feels “hugely vindicated” by the ruling but warned it needs to be implemented into everyday practice.
She told the PA news agency outside the court:
Now it’s over to the politicians to make sure that the law is obeyed.
I’m calling on my former colleague, John Swinney, the first minister of Scotland, and on the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, to respect this judgment and to do what they say that they do.
They both say they believe in women’s rights and they believe in women’s rights to single-sex spaces. If they mean that then they need to make sure that public policy changes to respect the fact that women means biological women and lesbian means women who are sexually attracted to women.
Men are not included within those categories.
Cherry said there will “have to be a sea change” across the public sector to recognise that the law has been clarified in the ruling.
Reflecting on her own experience, she said:
I’m a long-term feminist. I’m a lesbian who came out in the ‘80s and campaigned against section 28.
I’ve had to put up with my own party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, calling me a bigot and a transphobe for sticking up for the rights of women and lesbians.
I think she owes all of us, not just me, and more importantly the women of Scotland, an apology.
The Policy Exchange thinktank described today’s supreme court judgment as a “welcome victory” but insisted it should have been the government rather than a court which clarified the issue.
Lara Brown, senior research fellow on culture and identity at the thinktank, said:
By confirming that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 means ‘biological sex’, the supreme court has secured women’s sex-based rights – rights to which they have always been entitled as a matter of law.
While this is a welcome victory, it should never have been left to the courts to answer the question of ‘What is a woman?’
Had the government used their statutory powers to clarify that sex in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, when Policy Exchange called for them to do so in 2023, the Scottish ministers would never have been able to issue unlawful advice on the subject.
Scottish Greens call supreme court ruling 'deeply concerning for human rights'
The Scottish Greens have described today’s supreme court ruling as “deeply concerning for human rights”. The party said it would “continue to stand with trans people and resist culture war being waged against them”.
On X, the Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman wrote:
Sending love and solidarity to trans people everywhere.
We will always fight to protect human rights, dignity and respect for all people. We stand with the trans community today, tomorrow and always.
The UK supreme court decision is a “victory for women across the United Kingdom”, the leader of the Scottish Tories has said.
Russell Findlay hailed the decision, which confirmed that the definition of woman in the 2010 Equality Act refers to biological women, as an “abject humiliation for the SNP”.
Findlay said:
This is a victory for women across the United Kingdom, a victory for common sense – and an abject humiliation for the SNP.
John Swinney now needs to respect women’s rights and get rid of the dangerous gender policies which have become embedded in Scotland’s public institutions.
This ruling should sound the death knell once and for all for Nicola Sturgeon’s reckless self-ID plans, which Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens shamefully backed to the hilt at Holyrood.
John Swinney must stop obsessing about gender and get back to the day job of delivering better public services and a stronger economy.
The equalities watchdog for Great Britain welcomed the ruling as having addressed challenges around single-sex spaces.
Kishwer Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said:
Today the supreme court ruled that a gender recognition certificate does not change a person’s legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.
We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.
As we did not receive the judgment in advance, we will make a more detailed statement once we have had time to consider its implications in full.
Supreme court ruling brings 'clarity and confidence', says government spokesperson
The supreme court ruling on the definition of a woman under the Equality Act brings “clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs”, a government spokesperson has said, reports the PA news agency.
Reacting to the supreme court ruling, a government spokesperson said:
We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.
This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.
The supreme court judgment in the For Women Scotland appeal against the Scottish government rules the certificated sex interpretation would have “rendered meaningless” a section of the 2010 Equalities Act dealing with protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
This interpretation would mean “a trans woman (a biological male) with a GRC (gender recognition certificate)(so legally female) who remains sexually oriented to other females would become a same-sex attracted female, in other words, a lesbian” and would lead to an “inevitable loss of autonomy and dignity for lesbians” as well as affecting lesbian clubs and associations.
The judgment continues:
Read fairly, references to sex in this provision can only mean biological sex. People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate.
Ruling does not diminish transgender women’s protections against direct discrimination, says supreme court
The ruling by the supreme court that “woman” in the Equality Act (EA) 2010 refers to biological women does not diminish transgender women’s protections against direct discrimination, the judges have said.
In their judgment, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler said:
A man who identifies as a woman who is treated less favourably because of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment will be able to claim on that basis.
A man who identifies as a woman who is treated less favourably not because of being trans (the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) but because of being perceived as being a woman will be able to claim for direct sex discrimination on that basis.
This does not entail any practical disadvantage and there is no discordance (as the Scottish ministers appear to suggest) between the individual’s position in society and the ability to claim on this basis.
A certificated sex reading of the EA 2010 is not necessary here, and the approach applies equally whether or not the claimant has a gender recognition certificate.
The LGB Alliance charity said the ruling “marks a watershed for women”.
According to the PA news agency, chief executive Kate Barker said:
The ruling confirms that the words ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ refer to same-sex sexual orientation and makes it absolutely clear that lesbians wishing to form associations of any size are lawfully entitled to exclude men – whether or not they possess a GRC (gender recognition certificate).
It is difficult to express the significance of this ruling: it marks a watershed for women and, in particular, lesbians who have seen their rights and identities steadily stolen from them over the last decade.
Barker said the supreme court ruling “delivers huge benefits to women and to lesbians”.
She told the PA news agency:
This is a victory for biology, for common sense, for reality.
It’s definitely a victory for lesbians as well, and it was specifically mentioned in the case how lesbians have been disadvantaged by this idea that maybe a man could be a woman and could be a lesbian if he had a certificate, and the ruling just absolutely blew that out of the water.
It was really fair, it was really clear and it delivers huge benefits to women and to lesbians in particular, so I’m absolutely we’re all thrilled about it.
Barker said the ruling would cut out a lot of expensive and time-consuming court cases in the future “because it sets a clear precedent”.
On the provision of single-sex services, the written supreme court judgment on the For Women Scotland appeal against the Scottish government gives examples including rape or domestic violence counselling, domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centres, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms.
It states:
Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.
It adds:
It is fanciful (even perverse) to think that any reasonable objection to the presence of a person of the opposite sex could be grounded in (gender recognition certificate) GRC status or that a confidential GRC could make any difference at all.
Kemi Badenoch calls supreme court ruling a 'victory'
Kemi Badenoch has lauded as a “victory” the supreme court ruling that “woman” in equality law refers to biological women.
According to the PA news agency, the Conservative party leader said:
Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in law either.
This is a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
The era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end.
