The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of “woman” in equality law refers solely to biological women, a landmark judgment that is expected to reshape how gender rights are interpreted and applied across the country.
In a unanimous decision, the court concluded that under the Equality Act 2010, the word “woman” pertains to “a biological woman and biological sex.” The decision was welcomed by gender-critical campaigners, many of whom gathered outside the court in celebration, while LGBTQ+ advocates described it as a deeply unsettling moment for transgender rights.
The case began in 2018 when campaigners in Scotland challenged legal provisions that recognized trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) as women under the law. These certificates legally acknowledge a person’s transition and have historically provided access to rights and protections associated with their affirmed gender.
However, the challengers argued that these rights should only apply to individuals assigned female at birth. In contrast, the Scottish government maintained that a trans woman with a GRC should be legally recognized as a woman and, thus, enjoy the same protections under the Equality Act.
Although the case arose from a dispute over legislation aimed at improving gender balance on public boards in Scotland, its outcome has nationwide implications, influencing the broader debate over gender identity, biological sex, and access to gender-specific spaces and services.
Both major UK political parties responded to the verdict. Labour described it as a source of “clarity and confidence,” while the Conservative Party hailed it as “a clear victory for common sense,” urging the government to update existing guidance to reflect the judgment.
The five justices sided with advocacy group For Women Scotland (FWS), which contended that including trans women in the legal definition of “woman” would complicate laws protecting access to single-sex spaces like bathrooms, shelters, and communal housing.
“The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” Lord Patrick Hodge said during the ruling. “The provisions relating to sex discrimination can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex,” he added.
“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” the court’s summary noted, adding that trans women could be excluded from certain same-sex facilities if “proportionate.”
Lord Hodge further argued that if transgender women with GRCs were treated identically to biological women under the Equality Act, it would create a legal imbalance, stating they would possess “greater rights than those who do not,” especially regarding areas like pregnancy and maternity leave.
Still, the justice stressed that the ruling does not strip trans people of protection under the law. He clarified that transgender individuals, with or without a GRC, are still safeguarded against discrimination based on gender reassignment or perceived gender identity.
Britain’s government supported the court’s interpretation. “This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs,” a government spokesperson said. “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government.”
A Milestone—or a Setback?
Despite Lord Hodge cautioning that the ruling should not be seen as a win for one group over another, several gender-critical organizations framed the outcome as a definitive victory.
“The court has given the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not paperwork,” said advocacy group Sex Matters.
The LGB Alliance, which also presented arguments in court, called the judgment a “watershed for women.”
Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry, a vocal advocate for the biological definition of sex, expressed her satisfaction outside the court, telling reporters she felt “hugely vindicated” by the decision. “It is now over to the politicians to make sure that the law is obeyed,” she added.
However, LGBTQ+ and human rights groups warn that the ruling may deepen the marginalization of trans people, who already face rising hostility in public discourse.
Trans activists have pointed to a growing trend of legal and societal pushback. In the UK, hate crimes related to sexual identity surged by 112% in 2023, the same year that 16-year-old trans girl Brianna Ghey was brutally murdered in a park by two teenagers.
Across the Atlantic, similar debates have ignited, with rights groups in the U.S. noting increased legislative efforts to restrict the rights of transgender and nonbinary individuals.
Amnesty International, which supported the Scottish government in the case, emphasized the need to modernize existing laws to ensure trans individuals can live freely without intrusive legal hurdles. Following the ruling, the organization stated that while the court acknowledged trans people are protected under the Equality Act, the broader implications could be “potentially concerning.”
LGBTQ+ advocacy group Stonewall echoed these sentiments, calling the court’s decision “incredibly worrying for the trans community.”
British trans advocate Ella Morgan expressed fear about what the ruling means for her and others. “I had a feeling these changes would be implemented in the UK following the US news, I hoped that deep down I would be wrong. Today for the first time, I am scared about walking out of my front door,” she said in a statement.
