On 16 April 2025, the UK Supreme Court gave an important decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. The Court said that, under the Equality Act 2010, the words “woman”, “man” and “sex” mean biological sex only.
This means that a transgender woman, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), is not treated as a “woman” for sex-based rights under the Equality Act. However, transgender people are still protected under a separate category called “gender reassignment”.
The judgment was given by five judges, including Lord Reed (President of the Court) and Lord Hodge (Deputy President). The case clears up long-standing confusion about how sex-based rights and transgender rights work under UK law.
How the case started
The case came from the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which aims to ensure 50% women on public boards in Scotland.
Scottish Government guidance said that transgender women with a GRC should be counted as women. A women’s group called For Women Scotland (FWS) challenged this view, arguing that it went against the Equality Act 2010, which is controlled by the UK Parliament, not Scotland.
Although Scottish courts initially supported the Government, the Supreme Court allowed an appeal and finally ruled that the guidance was unlawful.
What the Supreme Court decided
The judges closely examined the Equality Act and made these key points:
- The Equality Act clearly separates “sex” and “gender reassignment” as two different protected characteristics.
- The law assumes biological sex, especially in areas like women-only spaces, sports, and certain jobs.
- Although a GRC changes a person’s legal sex for many purposes, it does not override the Equality Act where biological sex matters.
- The Court said this decision is about interpreting the law, not taking sides in political or social debates.
Lord Hodge stressed that the ruling should not be seen as a win or loss for any group.
What the decision means in practice
|
Area |
Effect |
|
Women-only spaces |
Organisations can lawfully restrict some spaces (such as refuges, prisons, changing rooms, or sports) to biological women, where allowed by law. |
|
Positive-action schemes |
Schemes aiming to help “women” (such as quotas) now apply only to biological females. |
|
Workplaces & public bodies |
Employers must base sex-specific rules on biological sex, but still protect transgender people from discrimination. |
|
Transgender protections |
Trans people remain protected from unfair treatment under the gender reassignment category. |
After the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued new guidance and started work on an updated Code of Practice. Some sports bodies have also changed their rules to limit women’s categories to biological females.
Reactions to the ruling
- Supporters of sex-based rights welcomed the decision. Public figures like J K Rowling and Kemi Badenoch called it common sense.
- Trans-rights groups raised concerns, saying the decision could harm transgender people’s dignity and safety.
- Human-rights organisations, including Amnesty International, warned the ruling might conflict with international human-rights principles.
- Governments:
The Scottish Government accepted the decision but said it remains committed to inclusion. The UK Government welcomed the clarity, saying it will help service providers like hospitals and refuges.
What happens next
The judgment highlights ongoing tension between the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004. While the law is now clearer, future changes could come through Parliament, not the courts.
More legal challenges may follow, including possible cases before the European Court of Human Rights. As new guidance is developed and real-world cases arise, the full impact of the ruling will become clearer.
For now, the decision confirms that biological sex is central to certain legal protections, especially where safety, fairness, and sex-based rights are involved.
