UK Supreme Court Holds: Transgender Women Not Women! By Mrs. Vera West
In the crisp London air of April 16, 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision that rippled across the nation, reshaping the legal landscape of sex-based rights. The case, For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers UKSC/2024/0042 was not just a legal battle but a cultural flashpoint, pitting the immutable reality of biological sex against the evolving recognition of gender identity. At its core, the ruling clarified that under the Equality Act 2010, the terms "woman" and "sex" refer unequivocally to biological women and biological sex, excluding transgender women—even those with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs)—from the legal definition of "woman." This narrative traces the journey of the case, its implications, and the voices that echoed in its wake, offering a window into a decision that balanced legal precision with societal tension.
The story begins in 2018, when the Scottish Parliament passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act. Aimed at ensuring gender balance, the law mandated that 50% of public board members be women. But an amendment, introduced by a Scottish Labour MSP, expanded the definition of "woman" to include all transgender women, regardless of whether they held a GRC—a formal document recognising a person's acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. For Women Scotland (FWS), a gender-critical feminist group backed by figures like J.K. Rowling, saw this as a step too far. They argued that redefining "woman" to include trans women, even those legally recognised as female, blurred the lines of sex-based protections, potentially undermining single-sex spaces like refuges, hospital wards, and sports.
FWS launched a judicial review, contending that the Scottish Parliament had overstepped its legislative authority by altering the definition of "woman" in a way that conflicted with the UK-wide Equality Act. The Inner House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh agreed in 2022, ruling the original definition unlawful. In response, the Scottish government revised its guidance, aligning the definition of "woman" with the Equality Act but maintaining that trans women with GRCs were included. Unsatisfied, FWS challenged this new guidance, arguing it still diluted the biological basis of sex-based rights. Their petition was dismissed by the Outer House and upheld by the Inner House in 2023, setting the stage for a final appeal to the Supreme Court.
By November 2024, the case reached the UK's highest court, where five justices—led by Deputy President Lord Patrick Hodge—grappled with a deceptively simple question: Does a person with a GRC recognising their gender as female qualify as a "woman" under the Equality Act 2010? The stakes were high. For Women Scotland, represented by Aidan O'Neill KC, argued that "sex" in the Equality Act meant biological sex—an "immutable biological state" rooted in reality, not legal certification. They warned that including trans women with GRCs would complicate the operation of single-sex spaces, forcing providers to navigate legal ambiguities or face discrimination claims.
The Scottish government, defended by Ruth Crawford KC, countered that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 established that a GRC changes a person's sex "for all purposes," including under the Equality Act. They emphasised that trans women with GRCs had a "fundamental right" to be recognised in their acquired gender, aligning with two decades of legal practice. Trans rights groups, like Scottish Trans, echoed this, warning that a ruling against them could erode protections for trans people, leaving them vulnerable to exclusion from both men's and women's spaces.
The court's 88-page judgment, delivered on April 16, 2025, cut through the complexity with clarity. Lord Hodge, speaking for the unanimous bench, declared: "The terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex." The justices reasoned that the Equality Act's purpose—protecting against discrimination based on immutable characteristics—hinged on a binary concept of sex. Expanding "sex" to include legal gender, they argued, would create "incoherent and impracticable" outcomes, such as hospitals struggling to maintain women-only wards or sports organisations facing challenges in segregating competitions. The court rejected the idea that a GRC fundamentally alters one's sex under the Equality Act, emphasising that trans people retain robust protections against discrimination under the "gender reassignment" characteristic.
Outside the Supreme Court, Susan Smith and Marion Calder, co-directors of For Women Scotland, embraced supporters amid cheers and tears. "Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case: that women are protected by their biological sex," Smith declared. For gender-critical campaigners, the ruling was a triumph—a vindication of their fight to preserve single-sex spaces. J.K. Rowling, a vocal supporter, praised the "extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women" who secured a victory for "women and girls across the UK." The UK government welcomed the decision, with a spokesperson affirming that "single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be," bringing "clarity and confidence" to hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
Yet, the ruling struck a different chord for trans rights advocates. Scottish Trans manager Vic Valentine expressed shock, arguing that the decision "reverses 20 years of understanding" about GRCs and could exclude trans people from essential services. "It's hard to understand where we would then be expected to go," they said, highlighting fears of a fragmented society. Stonewall, a leading LGBTQ+ charity, called the ruling "incredibly worrying," while TransLucent warned of widespread concern within the trans community. Legal experts, like Phillip Pepper of Shakespeare Martineau, noted that while the decision offered long-term clarity for businesses, it risked "further division" in the short term, urging updates to equality legislation.
The For Women Scotland decision is more than a legal footnote; it's a pivot point in the UK's ongoing debate over sex and gender. By affirming that "sex is binary" in law, the court has strengthened the legal foundation for single-sex spaces, potentially affecting policies on toilets, changing rooms, prisons, and sports. For example, a Scottish health organisation facing a lawsuit over a trans woman's use of a female changing room cited the ruling as relevant. However, the court's insistence that trans people remain protected under the Equality Act—against discrimination, harassment, and victimisation—seeks to balance competing rights, though trans advocates fear practical exclusion.
Politically, the ruling has stirred the pot. Scottish First Minister John Swinney accepted the judgment, promising to engage with Westminster to assess its implications while prioritising "the rights of all." Gender-critical politicians, like Kemi Badenoch and Rosie Duffield, hailed the decision as a return to "common sense," while critics, including Labour for Trans Rights, decried it as a product of "anti-trans lobbying" and urged resistance against mirroring U.S.-style restrictions. Internationally, the ruling resonates, with U.S. advocates like Imara Jones of TransLash Media warning that it could bolster efforts to narrow gender definitions across the Atlantic.
As the dust settles, the For Women Scotland case stands as a testament to the law's power to clarify—and divide. Lord Hodge cautioned against viewing the ruling as a "triumph of one group over another," but the polarised reactions suggest otherwise. For some, it's a shield for women's rights; for others, a barrier to trans inclusion. The challenge now lies in navigating this clarity without fracturing the fragile bonds of a diverse society. As Susan Smith toasted victory outside the court, and trans campaigners vowed resilience, one thing was certain: the battle was far from over.
"The United Kingdom's Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that transgender women do not fit the legal definition of a "woman" — which is reserved for those born biologically female.
The court's five judges agreed in the landmark ruling that "the terms 'woman' and 'sex'" under the country's 2010 Equality Act "refer to a biological woman and biological sex," Justice Patrick Hodge said.
The ruling "does not remove protection from trans people," who are "protected from discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment," the court confirmed — but a transgender person with documentation recognizing them as female should not be considered a woman for equality purposes.
Activists celebrate after the UK Supreme Court's decision defining a "woman" in London on April 16, 2025.AFP via Getty Images
Activists gather outside to celebrate the landmark decision by the UK Supreme Court in London, England.AFP via Getty Images
The definition was challenged in 2018 after the Scottish Parliament passed a law stating that women should make up 50% of the representatives on Scottish public boards.
Scottish officials later said female representation included trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, which offers legal recognition of someone's female sex under the Equality Act, to meet the quota.
Women Scotland (FWS), the women's rights group that brought the legal challenge, argued the Scottish officials' redefinition of women went beyond Parliament's powers.
"Not tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise 50% men, and 50% men with certificates, yet still lawfully meet the targets for female representation," the group's director, Trina Budge, had previously said.
The landmark decision could impact sex-based rights and single-sex facilities across the UK, the group, which counted "Harry Potter" author JK Rowling among its biggest supporters, has said.
A woman wearing a "Female" shirt reacts following the Supreme Court ruling.AFP via Getty Images
FWS argued that under the Equality Act, "sex" should refer to biological sex as it's understood "in ordinary, everyday language."
"Our position is your sex, whether you are a man or a woman or a girl or a boy, is determined from conception in utero, even before one's birth, by one's body," FWS attorney Aidan O'Neill said.511
"It is an expression of one's bodily reality. It is an immutable biological state."
The legal challenge was initially rejected in 2022, but the FWS was permitted to take its case to the country's top court last year."
Comments