403
Sorry!!
Error! We're sorry, but the page you were looking for doesn't exist.
U.K. Supreme Court Anchors Legal Definition Of ‘Woman’ To Biological Sex In Landmark Ruling
(MENAFN- The Rio Times) Britain's Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision on April 16, 2025, ruling that the term“woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers strictly to biological sex, not gender identity.
Five justices concluded that transgender women, even those with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), do not meet the legal definition of“woman” under the Act.
This ruling follows a challenge by For Women Scotland (FWS) against Scottish government guidance that counted trans women with GRCs toward female quotas on public boards.
The court's decision signals a significant shift in how UK law will treat sex-based rights and protections. Lord Hodge, delivering the judgment, stated that the Act's references to“woman” and“sex” can only mean“biological woman and biological sex.”
The justices found that including trans women with GRCs would create legal contradictions, especially in areas like maternity leave and pregnancy rights.
The Scottish government had argued that a GRC legally changes a person's sex for all purposes. However, the court rejected this, emphasizing that Parliament intended the Equality Act to protect sex-based rights for those born female.
Legal Clarity Amid Divisive Reactions
The ruling overturns earlier Scottish court decisions that had accepted a broader definition. This landmark judgment has immediate implications for access to single-sex spaces such as hospital wards, shelters, and sports teams.
Service providers now have legal clarity to restrict these spaces to biological women, while trans women remain protected from discrimination under the Act's“gender reassignment” category.
The court stressed that its decision does not remove protections for trans people, who still have rights against discrimination and harassment. Political reactions reflect the decision's divisive nature.
The Labour government described the ruling as providing needed clarity, while the opposition Conservatives called it a victory for common sense.
Gender-critical groups welcomed the decision as a safeguard for women's rights, while LGBTQ+ advocates warned it could increase exclusion and marginalization.
The case originated from Scotland's 2018 law requiring public boards to be 50% female, which prompted concerns about redefining legal sex. FWS argued that allowing GRC holders to count as women could distort representation and undermine sex-based protections.
Five justices concluded that transgender women, even those with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), do not meet the legal definition of“woman” under the Act.
This ruling follows a challenge by For Women Scotland (FWS) against Scottish government guidance that counted trans women with GRCs toward female quotas on public boards.
The court's decision signals a significant shift in how UK law will treat sex-based rights and protections. Lord Hodge, delivering the judgment, stated that the Act's references to“woman” and“sex” can only mean“biological woman and biological sex.”
The justices found that including trans women with GRCs would create legal contradictions, especially in areas like maternity leave and pregnancy rights.
The Scottish government had argued that a GRC legally changes a person's sex for all purposes. However, the court rejected this, emphasizing that Parliament intended the Equality Act to protect sex-based rights for those born female.
Legal Clarity Amid Divisive Reactions
The ruling overturns earlier Scottish court decisions that had accepted a broader definition. This landmark judgment has immediate implications for access to single-sex spaces such as hospital wards, shelters, and sports teams.
Service providers now have legal clarity to restrict these spaces to biological women, while trans women remain protected from discrimination under the Act's“gender reassignment” category.
The court stressed that its decision does not remove protections for trans people, who still have rights against discrimination and harassment. Political reactions reflect the decision's divisive nature.
The Labour government described the ruling as providing needed clarity, while the opposition Conservatives called it a victory for common sense.
Gender-critical groups welcomed the decision as a safeguard for women's rights, while LGBTQ+ advocates warned it could increase exclusion and marginalization.
The case originated from Scotland's 2018 law requiring public boards to be 50% female, which prompted concerns about redefining legal sex. FWS argued that allowing GRC holders to count as women could distort representation and undermine sex-based protections.
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept
any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images,
videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright
issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.
Most popular stories
More Story
Comments
No comment