'Watershed' Supreme Court gender verdict will have 'significant' implications for equality laws

The statement issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission follows a landmark ruling on Wednesday

The Supreme Court ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex under equality laws will have "significant implications", a watchdog has said, as campaigners hailed the verdict as a "watershed" moment.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) issued the warning after the Scottish Government lost a high-profile case at the UK Supreme Court to campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS).

Britain’s top judges ruled on Wednesday the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 “refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.

The verdict is expected to have far-reaching implications, including on single-sex spaces and who can access them, with NHS officials south of the Border already confirming they will consider the ruling as they update guidance on same-sex hospital wards.

Susan Smith (L) and Marion Calder, directors of For Women Scotland, cheer as they leave the Supreme Court in London. Picture: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images | Getty Images

UK ministers were urged to “take urgent steps to clear up the confusion" by revising gender laws as the Scottish Tories described the court verdict as an “abject humiliation” for the SNP Government.

Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry called on Nicola Sturgeon, who was leading the Scottish Government when it passed the Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill, to apologise to women, adding: “Now it’s over to the politicians to make sure that the law is obeyed.”

Finance Secretary Shona Robison said the Scottish Government was “keen” to work with the UK government on gender reforms, but stressed there was “no intention” of revising its own plans at Holyrood.

John Swinney said the Scottish Government accepted the ruling, adding that “protecting the rights of all” would inform its response. The First Minister insisted his Government had acted in “good faith”, but declined to apologise to women in the wake of the Supreme Court defeat.

The LGB Alliance charity said the ruling “marks a watershed for women” and was a “victory for biology, for common sense, for reality”. The organisation said the verdict made clear lesbian clubs could lawfully exclude trans women who have a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

Author JK Rowling, who has been outspoken on gender issues, paid tribute to the “extraordinary, tenacious” campaigners behind the legal challenge, writing on social media platform X their efforts had “protected the rights of women and girls across the UK”.

It comes as trans campaigners urged members "not to panic" as some said the verdict was "incredibly worrying for the trans community".

READ MORE: The key points from UK Supreme Court ruling on gender 'definition of a woman' For Women Scotland case

Responding to the judgment, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chairwoman of the EHRC, said: “This judgment from the Supreme Court has significant implications for the interpretation of Britain’s equality laws. We welcome the clarity this ruling brings; its importance to those whose rights are affected under the Equality Act cannot be overstated.

“The central issue raised by this appeal was how ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are defined in the Act. Our submission to the court highlighted significant problems with the practical application of a definition of ‘sex’, which allowed those who have acquired a gender recognition certificate (GRC) to be treated as their certified sex in the Equality Act. These inconsistencies impaired the proper functioning of the Act and risked jeopardising the rights and interests of women and same-sex attracted people.

“This judgment resolves the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court and in our advice to the former Minister for Women and Equalities more than two years ago. These include the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.”

Baroness Falkner said the Supreme Court verdict would be factored into the watchdog’s revised code of practice surrounding the Equality Act, which she said would be laid before Parliament before the summer recess.

READ MORE: Supreme Court gender verdict on definition of a woman due - here's what it will mean

Campaign group FWS had 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.

Ms Robison called for the process by which trans people change their legally recognised gender to be simplified, but signalled the change should come from Westminster, rather than the Scottish Parliament.

Asked if the Scottish Government would consider bringing forward new legislation on gender reforms, Ms Robison said: “The GRR Bill was about the process by which a gender recognition certificate would be acquired.

“This ruling is about the effect that a gender recognition certificate has, and there were issues that were highlighted by the Supreme Court around the interaction of those two pieces of legislation. Today’s ruling brings clarity to that and I think that is helpful.

“We have said in terms of the GRR Bill that we have no intention of bringing that back, and I think what’s important is the revised guidance that the Equality and Human Rights Commission will now develop, because that will need to be followed by public bodies.”

Ms Robison said she hoped the EHRC would work with the trans community, whom she said “might need a bit of assurance from today’s judgement”.

Ms Cherry, a long-time campaigner on the issue, said she felt “hugely vindicated” by the ruling.

“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,” she said.

“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.”

Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay said the ruling was a “victory for women across the United Kingdom” and an “abject humiliation for the SNP”.

The verdict sparked celebratory scenes outside the court, with singing and celebration from activists.

But Vic Valentine, the manager of charity Scottish Trans, said the decision “undercuts the central purpose of the Gender Recognition Act”.

They added: “We note that the court took interventions from a number of organisations that have campaigned to restrict trans people’s rights, but refused to hear from a single trans person, in a case that is all about trans people.”

LGBT charity Stonewall, while recognising this in the ruling, said there was “deep concern” around the consequences of the judgment, which it said was “incredibly worrying for the trans community”.

Amnesty International UK described the ruling as “disappointing” with “potentially concerning consequences for trans people”.