Supreme Court UK LIVE: Judges rule that 'sex' refers to biological sex in For Women Scotland gender case
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on sex, following a challenge brought by women’s rights campaigners.
The ruling follows a series of challenges brought by the campaign group, For Women Scotland (FWS), over the definition of “woman” in Scottish legislation mandating 50 per cent female representation on public boards.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdUK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announced that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex. However, he also counselled not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
The dispute centred on whether or not somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Equality Act.
Follow along here as The Scotsman brings you full updates from the courtroom and reaction to the verdict
For Women Scotland court verdict
Key Events
- The UK Supreme Court has ruled on the legal definition of a woman, following a challenge brought by women’s rights campaigners.
- The terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, the Supreme Court has ruled.
- The verdict, which follows a two-day hearing in November last year, will have wide-ranging implications across Scotland, England and Wales.
Good morning...
....and welcome to a day in which the UK Supreme Court is set to deliver a verdict that could have far-reaching policy implications in Scotland, England and Wales.
Supreme Court president Lord Reed will read a summary of a landmark ruling on the definition of a woman in law.
The verdict is expected soon after 9.45am.
The case stems from the latest legal challenge by the campaign group For Women Scotland against the Scottish Government.
The issue under scrutiny is whether a person with a full gender recognition certificate which recognises their gender as female can be considered a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act.
The legal battle dates back to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which sets legal targets for increasing the proportion of women on public boards.
But whichever way the verdict goes, it is expected to have implications for how public bodies, including NHS health boards, provide guidance and policies on the use of single-sex spaces, amongst many other things.
We’ll bring you the full details of the verdict here - as well as what it means moving forward.
Not quite sure what it all means?
Our Political Correspondent Rachel Amery has produced this very handy explainer, which will talk you through what is being debated, why and what both opposing parties in the case - For Women Scotland and the Scottish Government - have argued.
You can read the full explainer here.
What is a woman?
Our columnist Euan McColm mused on this very question over the weekend, as he addressed the debate around the definition of a woman, which will lie at the heart of today’s Supreme Court verdict.
As McColm writes: “We’ve seen and heard many seemingly intelligent people squirm, evade and even lash out [over this question].”
His full column is available to read here.
Verdict imminent
Morning all, Alexander Brown here from the Supreme Court on a sunny day in London.
The court is now sitting, with a result expected within minutes.
Here we go
There’s a long-winded explanation happening right now, but we are yet to have the verdict. Seconds away
For Women Scotland win
The Supreme Court unanimously rules that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex.
However, Lord Hodge cautions against seeing this as a victory, and talks about the discrimination faced by trans people
Context
Explaining the decision, Lord Hodge says the predecessors to the Equality Act used definitions of biological sex, with gender reassignment added as a separate protected characteristic.
He says after “painstaking analysis”, that including people with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the sex group would make Equality Act read in an “incoherent way” .
SNP blow
Here is the key line that will bother Scottish ministers.
The verdict said: “It follows that the interpretation of women in the Scottish Government guidance is incorrect”.
It’s a blow for the SNP.
Reaction from campaign group Sex Matters
Campaign group Sex Matters, which had made arguments in the case, said the court had given “the right answer”.
Maya Forstater, the group’s chief executive, said: “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.”
Pressure immediately applied on the UK goverment
Mims Davies, the Conservative shadow minister for women at Westminster, said the Government needed to clarify existing guidance to reflect the Supreme Court’s ruling on the definition of “woman”.
In a post on X, Ms Davies said: “Huge well done to FWS (For Women Scotland).
“We Conservatives have been warning the Government for months about the preparation they would need to do ahead of this judgement – it’s now time for them to clarify all existing guidance to make sure that public bodies are clear that sex means biological sex.”
She added: “This morning’s decision is important for women right across our country.
“This is a clear victory for common sense – and should never have taken a court case to prove the biological definition of a woman.
“We Conservatives, Claire Coutinho, (and) Kemi Badenoch had been pushing the government for many months to grip this situation and publish clear updated guidance. Now that we have legal clarity, ministers must do this without delay.
“As minister for women and equalities, Kemi Badenoch started a call for evidence for examples of where bad guidance was misinterpreting the law – the Government should use that work to make the guidance clear and certain so that the dignity, privacy and safety of women and girls is respected and crucially protected.
“Doing so will ensure safety, fairness and equality.”
The equalites watchdog comments on the ruling
The equalities watchdog for Great Britain welcomed the ruling as having addressed challenges around single-sex spaces.
Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, 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.”
Here's more reaction
The Policy Exchange think tank described the judgment as a “welcome victory”, but insisted it should have been the government rather than a court that clarified the issue.
Lara Brown, senior research fellow on culture and identity at the think tank, 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.”
The UK government has its say
A UK government spokesman 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.”
Jo Cherry calls for an apology from Nicola Sturgeon
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 said 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.”
Ms Cherry said there would “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.”
Russell Findlay weighs in
The Scottish Tories leader has hailed the decision, which confirmed the definition of woman in the 2010 Equality Act refers to biological women, as an “abject humiliation for the SNP”.
“This is a victory for women across the United Kingdom, a victory for common sense – and an abject humiliation for the SNP,” he said.
“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.”
All the reaction to the verdict in one place
Want to catch up to speed on all the reaction to the ground-breaking Supreme Court verdict?
Read the main news report here from Political Editor Alistair Grant
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.