2025 Supreme Court rules woman = biological woman in the Equality Act

2025 Supreme Court rules woman = biological woman in the Equality Act.

On 16 April 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a landmark unanimous ruling in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd vs The Scottish Ministers. The court determined that in the Equality Act 2010, the terms “woman,” “man,” and “sex” refer strictly to biological sex at birth. 

Key Ruling Details

• Biological Definition: The court held that a person’s legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act is determined by their sex recorded at birth.
• GRC Impact: Possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not change an individual’s legal sex for the specific application of the Equality Act.
• Protections Remain: The court emphasised that transgender people retain full protections against discrimination and harassment under the separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment. 

Background and History

• Scottish Legislation (2018): The dispute began after the Scottish Parliament passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which aimed for 50/50 gender balance on public sector boards.
• Broadening the Definition: Initial Scottish government guidance expanded the definition of “woman” for these quotas to include all trans women, which was later revised to include only those with a GRC.
• Legal Challenges: The advocacy group For Women Scotland (FWS) launched multiple judicial reviews, arguing that redefining “woman” in this way overstepped devolved powers and conflicted with the UK-wide Equality Act. 

Parties Involved

• Appellants: For Women Scotland Ltd, a campaign group that focuses on sex-based rights for women and children.
• Respondents: The Scottish Ministers, who defended their guidance as being consistent with previous legal understandings.
• The Bench: A unanimous panel of five justices, including Deputy President Lord Patrick Hodge, who wrote the lead judgment.
• Interveners: Organizations allowed to provide evidence included Amnesty International, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Sex Matters, and a joint submission from LGB Alliance, The Lesbian Project, and Scottish Lesbians.
• Prominent Supporters: Author J.K. Rowling provided financial support for the For Women Scotland legal challenge. 

Permitted Interveners

The court accepted written and/or oral submissions from the following groups to provide broader context and legal arguments: 

• Amnesty International: Provided submissions focused on human rights principles and international standards.
• Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC): Acted as the independent equality regulator to assist the court in assessing the practical implications of the ruling.
• Sex Matters: A gender-critical advocacy group that was permitted to give both written and oral arguments. The court specifically noted their submissions helped structure the final judgment.
• LGB Alliance, The Lesbian Project, and Scottish Lesbians: Provided a joint submission focusing on how the definition of “woman” affects same-sex oriented women and their associations. 

Rejected Applications

• Transgender Legal Experts: An application to intervene made by two prominent transgender legal experts, Victoria McCloud (a former judge) and Stephen Whittle, was rejected by the court.
• Impact of Rejection: The Good Law Project, which supported the rejected application, criticised the decision, stating it resulted in no trans parties or specific trans-led organisations being directly permitted to intervene in a case that profoundly affected their legal status. 

Evidence and Testimony

Because the Supreme Court is an appellate court, it does not typically hear new “witness evidence” or personal testimony from individuals. Instead, it reviews legal arguments and statutory interpretations. Critics, including Good Law Project founder Jolyon Maugham, highlighted that this led to a “significant silence” from the trans community within the formal legal proceedings.

The 2025 Supreme Court judgment has created significant legal debate regarding its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). While the Court focused on narrow statutory interpretation, critics argue the ruling places the UK in conflict with established European human rights precedents. 

Alleged Conflicts with ECHR Rights

Legal experts and advocacy groups argue the ruling may violate several articles of the Convention:

• Article 8 (Right to Private and Family Life): In the landmark case Goodwin vs UK, the ECHR ruled that trans people have a right to legal recognition of their acquired gender to safeguard their dignity. Critics contend that by excluding trans people with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) from their legal sex under the Equality Act, the UK is forcing them back into an “intermediate zone” or “legal limbo” previously deemed unacceptable by the European Court.
• Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination): Advocacy groups argue the ruling is discriminatory because it treats trans people with a GRC differently from cisgender people with the same legal status.
• Article 3 (Prohibition of Degrading Treatment): Some community responses suggest that being forced to use facilities inconsistent with one’s lived gender—or risking harassment in doing so—could amount to degrading or humiliating treatment. 

The Supreme Court’s Position

The Supreme Court justices did not directly address whether their “biological sex” interpretation was consistent with the ECHR. Instead, they argued: 

• Coherence over Identity: The ruling was necessary to maintain the “coherence and predictability” of the Equality Act 2010.
• Existing Protections: The Court maintained that trans people are still protected under the characteristic of gender reassignment, which they believe satisfies the requirement for legal protection without needing to redefine “sex”.
• Avoidance of “Two-Tier” Systems: The Court suggested that granting different rights to trans people with a GRC versus those without one would be unworkable and create unfair divisions. 

Current Status of Challenges

Following the 16 April 2025 Supreme Court ruling, multiple legal challenges have been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg to address potential conflicts with transgender rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

1. Dr. Victoria McCloud vs United Kingdom

Dr. Victoria McCloud, the UK’s first openly transgender judge, filed a formal application in August 2025. Her challenge centres on the following grounds: 

• Procedural Fairness (Article 6): She argues her right to a fair hearing was breached because the Supreme Court refused her application to intervene, effectively excluding trans voices from a case that directly affected their legal status.
• Privacy and Dignity (Article 8): The claim asserts that the “biological sex” ruling creates a “legal nonsense” where trans individuals are treated as different sexes in different contexts (e.g., marriage vs. equality law), violating their right to a private life.
• Non-Discrimination (Article 14): The challenge argues the ruling unfairly targets a vulnerable minority by removing long-standing legal recognition. 

2. Trans-Led Coalition Appeal

A separate strategic litigation application was filed in August 2025 by a coalition led by the Trans Legal Clinic. 

• Significance: This is the first time a case concerning trans rights in the UK has been taken to the ECtHR by an entirely trans-led legal team.
• Core Argument: The coalition argues the ruling reverses 20 years of legal progress established by previous ECtHR judgments like Goodwin v UK, which originally mandated the legal recognition of acquired gender. 

3. Current Progress and Timeline

• Admissibility Phase: As of early 2026, the ECtHR is in the “admissibility” phase, determining whether the UK has exhausted all domestic remedies and if the claims meet the court’s criteria for a full hearing.
• Expected Decisions: A decision on whether these cases will proceed to a full hearing is expected in mid-2026.
• Domestic Impact: While the Strasbourg cases are pending, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has submitted an updated Statutory Code of Practice to Parliament to implement the Supreme Court’s “biological sex” definition into everyday service provision. 

4. International Reactions

• Human Rights Watch: Condemned the ruling as a threat to the dignity of trans and intersex people, stating it blemishes the UK’s former reputation as a global leader on LGBTQ+ rights.
• ILGA-Europe: Following the ruling, the UK’s ranking for LGBTQ+ rights fell to 22nd in Europe, its lowest position since 2009.

Since the April 2025 Supreme Court ruling, several legal battles have emerged as organisations and advocacy groups test the boundaries of “biological sex” in diverse settings. 

1. Prison Housing (For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers II) 

In February 2026, For Women Scotland (FWS) launched a new challenge at the Court of Session.

• The Issue: FWS argues that the 2025 ruling mandates that all prisoners be housed strictly according to biological sex.
• Current Status: The Scottish Government is defending its policy of individual risk assessments, arguing that a “blanket rule” excluding trans women from the female estate could violate their human rights and lead to self-harm. 

2. Single-Sex Leisure Facilities (Sex Matters vs City of London) 

In January 2026, the High Court heard a challenge regarding the Hampstead Heath bathing ponds. 

• The Issue: The group Sex Matters argued that the City of London Corporation’s trans-inclusive admission policy was unlawful following the Supreme Court’s definition of “woman”.
• The Ruling: Mrs Justice Lieven dismissed the challenge on procedural grounds, stating it should have been brought in a county court. The Corporation continues to operate trans-inclusively, citing a public consultation where 86% of respondents supported existing arrangements. 

3. Professional Sports (Haynes vs English Blackball Pool Federation)

In August 2025, one of the first cases to directly apply the 2025 judgment was decided in a county court. 

• The Issue: Trans player Harriet Haynes challenged her exclusion from a women’s competition.
• The Ruling: The judge dismissed the claim, ruling that since the Supreme Court defined “woman” as biological, Haynes was legally male for the purpose of the competition and thus not a victim of sex discrimination. 

4. Workplace Protections (Sophie Cole and Kelly vs Leonardo UK) 

Despite the “biological sex” ruling, employment tribunals in late 2025 have continued to uphold protections for trans staff. 

• The Issue: Cases like Sophie Cole and Kelly vs Leonardo UK involved claims of harassment and discriminatory treatment in workplace facilities.
• The Outcome: Tribunals ruled that the 2025 judgment does not provide a “licence to discriminate” and that trans employees remain fully protected from harassment under the characteristic of gender reassignment. 

5. Institutional Policy Shifts

Citing the Supreme Court ruling, several major organisations have implemented new exclusions: 

• Girlguiding & Women’s Institute (WI): Both organisations announced in late 2025 that they would begin excluding trans women/girls to align with their single-sex mandates.
• Labour Party: Barred trans women from participating in the formal proceedings of its 2026 Women’s Conference. 

The EHRC’s September 2025 Statutory Code of Practice reflects a significant shift in how trans rights are balanced against biological sex-based rights. While it removes the automatic right for trans people to be treated as their acquired gender in single-sex spaces, it maintains specific protections.

1. The Core Shift: “Biological First”

The new guidance aligns with the 2025 Supreme Court ruling by establishing biological sex as the default legal baseline for the Equality Act 2010.

• GRC Limitations: The guidance explicitly states that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) no longer grants a person the right to access single-sex services of their acquired gender (e.g., a trans woman with a GRC can legally be excluded from a female-only ward).
• Direct Discrimination: It clarifies that excluding trans people from services of their lived gender is not direct sex discrimination, as they do not share the same “biological sex” as the group the service is intended for.

2. Retained Protections (Gender Reassignment)

The guidance is not a total removal of rights; it emphasizes that trans people are still protected under the characteristic of gender reassignment.

• Protection from Harassment: Service providers and employers cannot harass, bully, or treat trans people with less dignity. Even if a trans person is excluded from a single-sex space, they must be treated with professionalism and respect.
• Indirect Discrimination: Any policy that excludes trans people must still be “objectively justified” (a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim). A blanket ban without a specific reason (like privacy or safety) may still be found unlawful.

3. Inclusion Through “Third Spaces”

To ensure trans people are not excluded from public life entirely, the EHRC guidance encourages providers to offer inclusive alternatives:

• Gender-Neutral Provisions: It recommends providing individual, self-contained facilities (lockable “third spaces”) alongside single-sex spaces to ensure trans people have safe access to services.
• Lived Gender Recognition: In non-sensitive settings (e.g., general customer service, most workplace environments), the EHRC suggests that continuing to treat people as their lived gender is good practice, though no longer a strict legal requirement under the definition of “sex”.

4. Workplace and Pay

The guidance notes that for Equal Pay purposes, trans people must compare themselves to someone of their biological sex, not their lived gender. This prevents trans women from using biological women as comparators in pay disputes, which advocacy groups like TransActual have called a “major rollback” of workplace inclusion.

organizations can still choose to be trans-inclusive, but the 2025 Supreme Court ruling has shifted the legal risk from “failing to include” to “failing to exclude.”

Providing Inclusive Services for Trans People.

Under the Equality Act 2010 and the September 2025 EHRC Guidance, providers remain free to allow trans people to use services matching their lived gender, provided they can defend that policy against potential indirect discrimination claims from biological women.

How to Maintain an Inclusive Policy Safely:

• Individual Risk Assessments: Rather than a blanket “gender-identity” policy, the Scottish Government and EHRC recommend a case-by-case approach. This demonstrates that you have considered the safety and privacy of all users.
• Infrastructure Upgrades: To support trans inclusion without creating “reasonable objection” from others, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) suggests installing floor-to-ceiling cubicles and fully self-contained washrooms. This reduces the legal friction between “biological sex” rights and “gender identity” inclusion.
• Updated Privacy Notices: You must be transparent. Clear signage or terms of service stating that your venue is “trans-inclusive” allows users to make an informed choice, which helps mitigate claims of “unforeseen” privacy breaches.
• The “Legitimate Aim” of Inclusion: If challenged, an organization must argue that inclusion itself is a legitimate aim—for example, promoting diversity, ensuring the mental well-being of trans staff/customers, or adhering to a specific brand mission.

The New Legal Risk

Before April 2025, many organizations feared being sued for gender reassignment discrimination if they excluded trans people. Now, the primary risk is being sued for indirect sex discrimination by biological women who may argue that an inclusive policy creates a “hostile environment” or compromises their privacy based on their biological sex.

The 2025 Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd vs The Scottish Ministers triggered a deeply polarised community response, widely described as a “watershed moment” in UK civil rights. 

1. Gender-Critical Advocacy Groups

• Celebration of “Clarity”: Campaign groups like For Women Scotland(FWS), LGB Alliance, and Sex Matters hailed the decision as a “victory for biology, common sense, and reality”.
• Impact on Rights: These groups argued the ruling restores the original intent of the Equality Act 2010 by ensuring single-sex spaces (e.g., domestic abuse shelters, hospital wards, and sports) can be legally restricted to biological females without fear of legal challenge.
• Continued Pressure: Following the ruling, FWS launched further legal action against the Scottish government over prison policies, demanding that transgender prisoners be housed according to biological sex rather than a risk-assessed “chosen gender”. 

2. LGBTQ+ and Trans Advocacy Groups

• “Devastation” and Fear: Groups such as Stonewall, TransActual, and Scottish Trans expressed “shock and dismay,” stating the ruling reverses 20 years of legal understanding regarding Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs).
• Exclusion Concerns: Activists warned the ruling could lead to the “wholesale exclusion” of trans people from public life, noting a reported “chilling effect” where individuals avoid public spaces for fear of being challenged in toilets or changing rooms.
• Legal Inconsistency: The Good Law Project and others argued the ruling creates an “incoherent” legal landscape where a person’s sex is treated differently in equality law than in other areas like marriage or death certificates. 

3. Political and Institutional Reactions

• UK Government: The government welcomed the ruling as providing the “clarity and confidence” needed for service providers to manage single-sex spaces.
• Scottish Government: First Minister John Swinney accepted the ruling but emphasized the ongoing duty to protect the rights and dignity of all Scots. A working group was convened in April 2025 to update impacted policies, such as the Stop and Search Code of Practice.
• Pride Protest: In a significant act of defiance, Pride organisers in Glasgow, London, and Manchester banned political parties from their 2025 festivals, citing a “lack of action” and betrayal of trans human rights following the ruling.
• International Concern: The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights expressed anxiety that the ruling could lead to widespread human rights violations against trans individuals. 

4. Direct Public Backlash and Support 

• High-Profile Voices: J.K. Rowling supported the ruling as a protection for women and girls, while broadcaster India Willoughby described it as a “horrible and utterly degrading” historical injustice.
• Corporate Shifts: Following the ruling, some companies like Barclays and Virgin Active reportedly updated their policies to restrict access to single-sex facilities based on biological sex, while others remained in “limbo” awaiting finalized statutory codes from the EHRC. 
• The 2025 Supreme Court ruling sparked immediate “emergency demonstrations” across the UK, followed by larger mobilisations in the months after the judgment. 
• Immediate “Emergency” Protests (April 2025)
• Within 48 hours of the 16 April ruling, a coalition of 24 trans-led organisations and grassroots groups organised rallies across major UK cities

The largest and most significant protests occurred in two distinct waves: immediate “emergency demos” in April 2025 and a record-breaking Trans+ Pride in July 2025. 

1. London Trans+ Pride (July 2025) 

This became the largest trans rights march in history. 

• Numbers: An estimated 100,000 people participated. This was a massive increase from the 60,000 attendees in 2024.
• Theme: The march was held under the theme of “Existence and Resistance” in direct response to the Supreme Court ruling and subsequent EHRC guidance.
• Prominent Voices: High-profile speakers included Heartstopper actress Yasmin Finney and campaigner Caroline Litman. 

2. Emergency Demonstrations (April 2025)

Held across over 20 towns and cities immediately following the 16 April ruling. 

• London  (19 April): Between 20,000 and 25,000 people gathered in Parliament Square. Organisers and police had initially expected only around 200 attendees.
• Edinburgh (19 April): Approximately 2,000 people marched from the Mound to the UK Government headquarters at Queen Elizabeth House.
• Manchester (18–19 April): Over 1,000 people marched through the city centre.
• Sheffield Roughly 1,000 protesters gathered in front of the Town Hall.
• Other Cities: Rallies occurred in Leicester, Leeds, Bristol, Reading, and even Orkney and Plymouth

. 

3. Key Issues Raised at Protests

• Legal “Erasure”: Protesters argued the ruling makes Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) “almost meaningless” in daily life.
• Exclusion Fears: Rallies specifically condemned the EHRC for subsequently recommending that trans people be banned from toilets and facilities matching their lived gender.
• Union Support: Major unions, including the CWU, Equity, and UCU, made official statements or sent representatives to the marches. 

2026EXP