The UK’s highest court is set to deliver a landmark ruling on Wednesday that could reshape the legal definition of a “woman” and impact the rights of transgender individuals across Britain. The decision will be a decisive moment in the long-running debate surrounding biological sex versus gender identity, particularly in relation to the access of transgender women to sex-based spaces.
At the heart of the case is a years-long legal battle between the Scottish government and the women’s rights group ‘For Women Scotland’ (FWS).
FWS, which advocates for the protection of sex-based rights, argues that only those born biologically female should be legally recognized as women. The group claims that allowing transgender women, particularly those who have transitioned and obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), to be considered as women under the Equality Act 2010 undermines the rights of biological females, particularly in single-sex spaces such as shelters and sports.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will decide whether transgender women with a GRC are legally protected as women under the Equality Act, which defines a woman as “a female of any age.” This ruling has far-reaching implications not just for Scotland but for sex-based rights throughout the UK. The outcome could determine whether transgender women will retain access to vital services, including women’s shelters and public toilets.
The case revolves around the Scottish government’s position that anyone with a GRC, regardless of their biological sex at birth, should be treated as a woman under the Equality Act. The Scottish government argues that a GRC allows transgender individuals to change their legal gender, providing them with the same protections as those born female. Senior lawyer Ruth Crawford, representing the government, likened the GRC process to adoption, asserting that it is a legally recognized change, granting trans women the same rights as those born female.
In contrast, FWS and its supporters argue that biological sex is immutable, and that the Equality Act should be interpreted to protect only those who are born female. Aidan O’Neill, representing FWS, told the court that the definition of sex should be based on “biological reality” and not “legal fiction,” warning that allowing transgender women to be included in sex-based protections would lead to “absurd and unjust consequences.”
The challenge stems from a 2018 Scottish law aimed at ensuring 50% female representation on the boards of Scottish public bodies. This law recognized transgender women with a GRC as part of its definition of “woman,” which FWS successfully challenged. The group argues that this redefinition exceeds parliament’s powers, and that such policies could allow boards to meet female representation targets without actually including biologically female individuals.
The case, which first saw legal action in 2022, has attracted widespread attention from both sides of the debate. Supporters of FWS, including Harry Potter author JK Rowling, argue that the rights of transgender women should not come at the expense of those born biologically female. Rowling, a prominent figure in the gender critical movement, has donated significant funds to support the group’s legal efforts.
On the other hand, LGBTQ activists and human rights groups such as Amnesty International have raised concerns about the potential erosion of protections for transgender people. Amnesty submitted a brief to the court, stating that excluding transgender women from sex-based protections could violate human rights and be an overreach of the law.
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to stir intense reactions from both sides of the debate. With tensions running high, the ruling will not only affect the legal landscape for transgender rights in the UK, but could also serve as a defining moment in the broader conversation about gender identity and biological sex.
The ruling is scheduled to be announced at around 2.30 pm IST on Wednesday.
