Scottish Tory leader hails ‘victory for common sense’ as court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

A unanimous Supreme Court ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law has been described as an “abject humiliation” for the Scottish Government.

Campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) brought a series of challenges – including to the UK’s highest court – over the definition of “woman” in Scottish legislation mandating 50 per cent female representation on public boards.

The row centred on whether trans women with gender recognition certificates should be regarded as female for the purposes of the 2010 Equality Act, as argued by SNP ministers, or whether a biological definition should be used. Judges unanimously sided with FWS.

Campaigners celebrate outside the Supreme Court in London | PA

The group previously said not tying the definition of sex to its “ordinary meaning” could have far-reaching consequences for sex-based rights, as well as “everyday single-sex services” like toilets and hospital wards.

Writing on social media, the charity Scottish Trans urged people “not to panic” in the wake of the ruling.

It said: “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.”

In a statement, FWS said policies based on self-identification remain in place across the UK, in hospitals, police forces, schools and prisons.

Susan smith (centre left) and Marion Calder (centre right) co-directors of For Women Scotland with campaigners celebrate outside the Supreme Court in London after terms "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, the Supreme Court has ruled. Picture: Lucy North/PA Wire | PA

It said: “The UK and devolved governments, and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, need to take responsibility for their role in this, take urgent steps to clear up the confusion, and ensure the ruling has effect on the ground.”

Susan Smith, one of three directors of the group, told journalists: “In Scotland specifically, I think what our politicians need to get their heads around is, this is the law, and they need to stop pushing faulty guidance into schools and hospitals.”

She said there is going to be “ongoing fight” to get these policies “out of these places”.

JK Rowling, an outspoken critic of the Scottish Government’s stance on trans issues, wrote on social media: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.”

Scottish Conservative leader Russell 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.”

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said it accepted the ruling, adding: “The Supreme Court rightly counselled against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.

“The ruling gives clarity between two pieces of relevant legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.

“The Scottish Government acted in good faith in our interpretation of both the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010; and our approach was guided by the published guidance of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

“The Supreme Court judgment explicitly references that this stance was consistent with the advice given by the EHRC. And we note that that the EHRC are now reviewing their guidance to reflect the Supreme Court's ruling.

“Finally, we want to reassure everyone that the Scottish Government is fully committed to protecting everyone’s rights, to ensure that Scotland remains an inclusive country.”

A UK Government spokeswoman said it has “always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”.

She added: “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.”

Campaign group Sex Matters, which had made arguments in the case, said the court had given “the right answer”, while the LGB Alliance charity said the ruling “marks a watershed for women”.

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chairwoman of the 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.”

Amnesty International UK, which intervened in the case, said the ruling was “disappointing”, adding: “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.

Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman said: “This is a deeply concerning ruling for human rights and a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society.

“It could remove important protections and will leave many trans people and their loved ones deeply anxious and worried about how their lives will be affected and about what will come next.

“Trans people just want to be able to live their lives like any of us, without the fear of prejudice or violence, but today they have been badly let down.”

Lord Hodge, sitting with Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones alongside Ladies Rose and Simler, said the “central question” was how the words “woman” and “sex” are defined in the Equality Act.

He continued: “The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”

In an 88-page judgment, Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler said that while the word “biological” does not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman”.

The justices said that transgender people are still protected from discrimination, but that “gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and inequality”.

UK Supreme Court ruling on definition of woman branded 'abject humiliation for the SNP'

Comments