Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
LONDON — Britain's highest civil court ruled Wednesday that the definition of "woman" under the country's gender equality law is based on a person's sex at birth - a highly anticipated judgment in a case with implications for the protections of transgender people.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled unanimously Wednesday that the terms "woman" and "sex" in the country's 2010 Equality Act - which bans sex discrimination at work and in society - "refer to a biological woman and biological sex," said Patrick Hodge, the court's deputy president.
The ruling has narrow but "important" implications, said Colm O'Cinneide, a professor of constitutional and human rights law at University College London, in that it could affect transgender people's access to certain single-sex services and spaces in the U.K.
O'Cinneide said the issue of legally defining sex "has been a battleground," and as a result, the ruling will probably be seen as "very symbolic, very significant."
"But in some ways, it's quite a specific judgment turning on a particular point of statutory interpretation," he said. "Now, we'll have to wait and see what the wider symbolic political ramifications of it all is."
The debate over feminism and transgender rights has been a long-brewing one in the U.K. The LGB Alliance, which advocates for the rights of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men and intervened in the case as a third party, celebrated the ruling on social media, calling it "a watershed for women and, in particular, lesbians who have seen their rights and identities undermined over the last decade."
In reading out the judgment, Hodge counseled against interpreting it "as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another" - namely, as pitting the rights of those female at birth against those of transgender women. He said that transgender people are protected from discrimination in other ways under the Equality Act and that the court's ruling was intended to prevent the statute from being undermined by incoherent language.
The advocacy group that filed the case, For Women Scotland, posted on social media that its members were "absolutely jubilant." The group was formed in 2018 as a response to plans by the Scottish government to make it easier to legally change one's gender identification by eliminating the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling, who vocally opposed that plan, has publicly supported For Women Scotland's campaigns. On Wednesday, she praised the group in a post on X for protecting "the rights of women and girls across the UK."
The ruling comes at a time when the United States is undergoing its own heightened debates about defining sex. After taking office in January, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government," which stated that federal law will define sex as an "individual's immutable biological classification."
The U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, but neither the act nor the Constitution explicitly defines "women" or "sex." A 2020 Supreme Court ruling found that that law also protects gay and transgender workers. Citing the Bostock v. Clayton County ruling, President Joe Biden directed federal agencies to widen policies prohibiting sex discrimination to also cover gender identity and sexual orientation.
Trump, in his executive order, called that position "legally untenable."
For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers stemmed from a complaint filed by For Women Scotland in 2022 that challenged guidelines on the recognition of transgender people issued by the Scottish government. The guidelines, which were prompted by a successful legal challenge to a law requiring equal opportunities for women on public boards, said people issued with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) identifying them as a woman should be considered a woman for purposes of the Equality Act.
GRCs are official documents issued by the British government to transgender people wanting legal recognition of their gender identity. A Gender Recognition Panel made up of legal or medical experts evaluates applications and, once someone receives a GRC, it can be used to update a British marriage or civil partnership certificate, for example.
Generally speaking, the only people eligible are adults who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the U.K. or who have had gender-affirming surgery and lived in that gender for at least two years and intend to live in it for the rest of their lives.
For Women Scotland argued that Equality Act protections for women should apply only to people whose birth sex is female. The act provides specific protections for people who undergo gender-affirming surgery, and the group said it did not want to change those protections, but it argued that "for women to have full rights and protection it is important that 'sex' is clarified as referring to biology."
Proponents of changing the legal definition of "woman" and "sex" to include transgender women with GRCs argue that not doing so leaves gaps in the protections of transgender women.
Amnesty International intervened in the case as a third party, filing a written submission challenging the arguments of For Women Scotland. The group said that "human rights principles demonstrate beyond doubt" that the interpretation of Scotland's Supreme Civil Court - which ruled against For Women Scotland - "is correct."
On Wednesday, the five-judge panel in London wrote that "the definition of sex" in the Equality Act of 2010 "makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man." The panel said provisions of the act that refer to protections for women "necessarily exclude men."
Practically, this means it will now be "far easier to exclude trans people from same-sex spaces," said O'Cinneide, such as rape crisis centers that cater only to women and have all-female employees or lesbian-only clubs. It also "limits the protection for trans people that they can get under sex discrimination law," he said.
A statement by the British government said it has 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," the statement said, according to local media. "Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”
The judges cited practical justifications for their argument, saying it would make "no sense" for conduct under the Equality Act to be regulated "by reference to categories that can only be ascertained by knowledge of who possesses a (confidential) certificate."
They also stressed that transgender people would still be protected by existing antidiscrimination law. "The correct interpretation of the [Equality Act] as referring to biological sex does not cause disadvantage to trans people whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate," Hodge said in court Wednesday.
However, Hodge acknowledged that the issue is sensitive and that the ruling was likely to spark a strong reaction.
"The Court is well aware of the strength of feeling on all sides which lies behind this appeal," he said. He said women "have campaigned for over 150 years to have equality with men and to combat discrimination based on their sex," and he acknowledged that transgender people are "a vulnerable and often harassed minority" who "struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity."