Jump to content

For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Judgment: Delete statements that are unsupported by the cited sources and which are regarded as untrue by both the government and the EHRC.
Tags: references removed Mobile edit Mobile web edit
lesbian interveners is a shorthand the source uses. not from judgement
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App section source
Line 54: Line 54:
== Interventions and hearing ==
== Interventions and hearing ==
{{Expand section|date=April 2025}}
{{Expand section|date=April 2025}}
The Supreme Court allowed written interventions from four parties, with two additionally being permitted to make oral submissions.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web |last=Murphy |first=Will |date=2025-04-16 |title=UK Supreme Court Decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers |url=https://cornerstonebarristers.com/uk-supreme-court-decision-in-for-women-scotland-ltd-v-the-scottish-ministers/ |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=Cornerstone Barristers |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref name=":10">{{Cite web |title=Defining ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 — Inside the For Women Scotland v the Scottish Ministers appeal |url=https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal-hub/articles/defining-sex-in-the-equality-act-2010-inside-the-for-women-scotland-v-the-scottish-ministers-appeal/ |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=Law Society of Scotland |language=en}}</ref> The interveners were the [[Equality and Human Rights Commission]] (EHRC), [[Amnesty International]], [[Sex Matters (advocacy group)|Sex Matters]], and a group of three campaigning organisations comprising LGB Alliance, The Lesbian Project, and Scottish Lesbians (referred to as "the lesbian interveners").<ref>{{Cite web |title=Doyle Clayton clients prevail in landmark Supreme Court decision |url=https://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/resources/news/doyle-clayton-clients-prevail-in-landmark-supreme-court-decision/ |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=www.doyleclayton.co.uk |language=en-gb}}</ref><ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-10-11 |title=Scottish Lesbians to intervene in For Women Scotland’s Supreme Court appeal |url=https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/scottish-lesbians-to-intervene-in-for-women-scotlands-supreme-court-appeal |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=Scottish Legal News |language=en}}</ref> Sex Matters and the EHRC were additionally permitted to make oral arguments at the hearing.<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10" /> A request from the [[Good Law Project]] to intervene on behalf of two transgender legal experts - [[Victoria McCloud]] and [[Stephen Whittle]] - was declined.<ref name="Riedel"/><ref>{{Cite news |last=Brooks |first=Libby | date=2024-03-28 |title=Transgender judge seeks leave to intervene in UK court case over legal definition of ‘woman’ |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/28/transgender-judge-seeks-leave-to-intervene-in-uk-court-case-over-legal-definition-of-woman |access-date=2025-04-24 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref name="Independent-Goodlaw"/><ref>{{Cite news |last=Riedel |first=Samantha |date=2024-11-27 |title=U.K. Supreme Court Begins Case Deciding Whether Trans Women Can Be Legally Considered “Female” |url=https://www.them.us/story/uk-supreme-court-gender-recognition-act-woman-legal-definition |access-date=2025-04-25 |language=en-US}}</ref>
The Supreme Court allowed written interventions from four parties, with two additionally being permitted to make oral submissions.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web |last=Murphy |first=Will |date=2025-04-16 |title=UK Supreme Court Decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers |url=https://cornerstonebarristers.com/uk-supreme-court-decision-in-for-women-scotland-ltd-v-the-scottish-ministers/ |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=Cornerstone Barristers |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref name=":10">{{Cite web |title=Defining ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 — Inside the For Women Scotland v the Scottish Ministers appeal |url=https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal-hub/articles/defining-sex-in-the-equality-act-2010-inside-the-for-women-scotland-v-the-scottish-ministers-appeal/ |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=Law Society of Scotland |language=en}}</ref> The interveners were the [[Equality and Human Rights Commission]] (EHRC), [[Amnesty International]], [[Sex Matters (advocacy group)|Sex Matters]], and a group of three campaigning organisations comprising LGB Alliance, The Lesbian Project, and Scottish Lesbians.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Doyle Clayton clients prevail in landmark Supreme Court decision |url=https://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/resources/news/doyle-clayton-clients-prevail-in-landmark-supreme-court-decision/ |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=www.doyleclayton.co.uk |language=en-gb}}</ref><ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-10-11 |title=Scottish Lesbians to intervene in For Women Scotland’s Supreme Court appeal |url=https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/scottish-lesbians-to-intervene-in-for-women-scotlands-supreme-court-appeal |access-date=2025-04-27 |website=Scottish Legal News |language=en}}</ref> Sex Matters and the EHRC were additionally permitted to make oral arguments at the hearing.<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10" /> A request from the [[Good Law Project]] to intervene on behalf of two transgender legal experts - [[Victoria McCloud]] and [[Stephen Whittle]] - was declined.<ref name="Riedel"/><ref>{{Cite news |last=Brooks |first=Libby | date=2024-03-28 |title=Transgender judge seeks leave to intervene in UK court case over legal definition of ‘woman’ |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/28/transgender-judge-seeks-leave-to-intervene-in-uk-court-case-over-legal-definition-of-woman |access-date=2025-04-24 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref name="Independent-Goodlaw"/><ref>{{Cite news |last=Riedel |first=Samantha |date=2024-11-27 |title=U.K. Supreme Court Begins Case Deciding Whether Trans Women Can Be Legally Considered “Female” |url=https://www.them.us/story/uk-supreme-court-gender-recognition-act-woman-legal-definition |access-date=2025-04-25 |language=en-US}}</ref>


The case was heard at the Supreme Court from 26 to 27 November 2024. For Women Scotland argued that "sex" in the Equality Act always referenced "biological sex" and that the Scottish Government's position was wrong in law, while the Scottish Government argued that "woman" in the Equality Act includes a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the acquired gender of female.<ref name=":10" />
The case was heard at the Supreme Court from 26 to 27 November 2024. For Women Scotland argued that "sex" in the Equality Act always referenced "biological sex" and that the Scottish Government's position was wrong in law, while the Scottish Government argued that "woman" in the Equality Act includes a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the acquired gender of female.<ref name=":10" />


Sex Matters' intervention argued that the Equality Act's "gender reassignment" definition was a novel one unique to the Equality Act, and that neither party was correct in its interpretation.The Lesbian Interveners made submissions regarding the effect on the rights of same-sex oriented women. The EHRC argued that the difficulties in interpreting the Equality Act should be resolved by parliament. Amnesty International's submission highlighted the human rights principles at stake.<ref name=":10" />
Sex Matters' intervention argued that the Equality Act's "gender reassignment" definition was a novel one unique to the Equality Act, and that neither party was correct in its interpretation. Interveners supporting the plaintiffs made submissions regarding the effect on the rights of same-sex oriented women. The EHRC argued that the difficulties in interpreting the Equality Act should be resolved by parliament. Amnesty International's submission highlighted the human rights principles at stake.<ref name=":10" />


== Judgment ==
== Judgment ==

Revision as of 13:43, 28 April 2025

For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers
CourtSupreme Court of the United Kingdom
Argued26–27 November 2024
Decided16 April 2025
Neutral citation[2025] UKSC 16
Case history
Prior history[2023] CSIH 37[1]
Appealed fromInner House of the Court of Appeals
Court membership
Judges sittingReed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Rose, Simler

For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 is a UK Supreme Court decision on the definition of "man" and "woman" in the Equality Act 2010.

The case was brought by For Women Scotland (FWS), a gender-critical advocacy group; in 2022, FWS requested a judicial review of statutory guidance issued by the Scottish government, which stated that the definitions of "man" and "woman" in the Equality Act 2010 included those who had acquired the gender via a transition recognized under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. FWS argued that the Equality Act's definitions referred to "biological sex" and that the matter could not be legislated by Scotland because it was reserved to the UK Parliament. The court ruled in favour of the Scottish Ministers, and upheld their guidance.

After their petition was declined on appeal by the Court of Session, FWS took the case to the Supreme Court. The court found in a unanimous decision that, when referring to the Equality Act 2010, the terms "man", "woman", and "sex" were "always meant" to refer to "biological sex", and not gender or gender identity. The judges did not rule more broadly on whether trans women are considered women in contexts outside of the Equality Act, and stated that their ruling would not invalidate the Gender Recognition Act, or discrimination protections offered to transgender people under the Equality Act. No testimony was heard from trans people or trans advocacy groups in the proceedings.[2][3]

The ruling was praised by FWS and other gender-critical groups such as LGB Alliance, with FWS considering it to be "common sense".[4] Prime Minister Keir Starmer "welcomed" the judgement for bringing "clarity",[5][6] and Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch considered it a "victory" for women who had been targeted for "stating the obvious".[7] Equality and Human Rights Commission chair Kishwer Falkner stated that the ruling will be used to restrict trans women from women-only spaces and women's sport.[8] The ruling was criticised by pro-LGBTQ organisations and politicians, who believed that it could impact transgender rights in the UK, while acknowledging that the Court still upheld discrimination protections in the Equality Act for transgender people.

Background

In 2002, the European Court of Human Rights issued two judgements finding that the UK was breaching human rights by failing to legally recognize their acquired gender. This led to the passage of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which allowed trans people to legally change their gender through a Gender Recongition Certificate with support of two doctors and evidence of living in their acquired gender for 2 years.[9]

In 2018, Scotland passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act, a law that requires public authorities with boards (i.e. a statutory board or board of directors) to encourage participation by women. To meet the "gender representation objective", public boards must aim to have 50% of their non-executive members be women. When filling a vacancy in the board, there must be multiple candidates, including at least one woman and one non-woman.[10] The legislation as assented contained a definition of "woman" which was inclusive of trans women, by including any person who held the protected characteristic of gender reassignment as defined by the Equality Act 2010, and is "living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female."[11][10][12]

The gender-critical advocacy group For Women Scotland (FWS) filed a request for judicial review, arguing that the definition of "woman" under the Equality Act 2010 referred to "biological sex" and not gender. The Inner House ruled in favour of the Scottish Ministers, stating that trans women who have been issued a full gender recognition certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 were considered "women" under the Equality Act 2010.[11][13][12] In February 2022, following an appeal by FWS, the ruling was overturned by the Court of Session. Lady Dorrian ruled that the legislation "conflates and confuses two separate and distinct protected characteristics", being a trans woman was not explicitly considered a protected characteristic by the Equality Act, and that the Scottish government could not define protected characteristics because equal opportunities are a reserved matter to the UK Parliament.[14][12]

As a result of this ruling, the Act was amended on 19 April 2022 to remove the definition of "woman". Accompanying statutory guidance stated that "woman" was to be defined as per the Equality Act 2010. However, the guidance also stated that per the Gender Recognition Act 2004, people in possession of a full GRC were to be recognized by their "acquired gender" for the purposes of the Equality Act. This meant that trans women with a full GRC would be considered a "woman" under the Equality Act, and trans women without a GRC were excluded from the definition.[11][15][16]

In July 2022, FWS filed for a second judicial review, arguing that the statutory guidance fell outside of the devolved competence of the Scottish government.[15] In December 2022, Lady Haldane ruled in favour of the Scottish Ministers, stating that the updated statutory guidance was lawful, and that the definition of "sex" per the Equality Act 2010 was "not limited to biological or birth sex", and "includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex."[17]

In October 2023, FWS filed for another appeal, arguing that the ruling conflated sex and gender in a manner that was "unworkable and impractical". On 1 November 2023, the case was thrown out, but with the option for it to be taken to the Supreme Court;[18][19] Lady Dorrian wrote that "in our view it is clear that the intention was that on receipt of a Gender Recognition Certificate, a person's sex was to be that of their acquired gender, man or woman", and that "we do not accept the submissions of the reclaimer that this somehow turns the provisions on their head, or diminishes the protection available to individuals against discrimination on the grounds of sex."[20][16]

FWS stated that it was "hugely disappointed" in the decision, as the court had "ruled that women's protections under law may—in some cases—include men who have obtained a GRC."[20][16] An FWS director argued that the earlier ruling would allow public boards to consist of "50 per cent men, and 50 per cent men with certificates" while still complying with the gender representation objective. The group would bring the case to Supreme Court after a crowdfunding campaign; of the £300,000 raised, £70,000 was donated by author J. K. Rowling.[18][19]

Interventions and hearing

The Supreme Court allowed written interventions from four parties, with two additionally being permitted to make oral submissions.[21][22] The interveners were the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Amnesty International, Sex Matters, and a group of three campaigning organisations comprising LGB Alliance, The Lesbian Project, and Scottish Lesbians.[23][22][24] Sex Matters and the EHRC were additionally permitted to make oral arguments at the hearing.[21][22] A request from the Good Law Project to intervene on behalf of two transgender legal experts - Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle - was declined.[3][25][26][27]

The case was heard at the Supreme Court from 26 to 27 November 2024. For Women Scotland argued that "sex" in the Equality Act always referenced "biological sex" and that the Scottish Government's position was wrong in law, while the Scottish Government argued that "woman" in the Equality Act includes a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the acquired gender of female.[22]

Sex Matters' intervention argued that the Equality Act's "gender reassignment" definition was a novel one unique to the Equality Act, and that neither party was correct in its interpretation. Interveners supporting the plaintiffs made submissions regarding the effect on the rights of same-sex oriented women. The EHRC argued that the difficulties in interpreting the Equality Act should be resolved by parliament. Amnesty International's submission highlighted the human rights principles at stake.[22]

Judgment

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment after the case was argued in November 2024. The court found a unanimous decision that the terms "man", "woman", and "sex" in the Act were "always intended" to refer to "biological sex" and not "certificated sex", and that any other interpretation would cause the Act to be incoherent and impracticable to operate.[7][12] The term "biological" did not appear in the original Equality Act and the judges did not define it, stating that "biological characteristics" corresponding to the "plain and unambiguous words [‘man’ and ‘woman’] are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation"[28] The ruling did not mention intersex people.[29] It referred to a hypothetical trans woman as "a man who identifies as a woman", argued that misogny is rooted in the "shared biology" of cisgender women, and defined "lesbian" as strictly referring to cisgender women sexually attracted to cisgender women.[3]

It found that the Scottish Government's guidance that "a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate is legally a woman" is invalid and incorrect.[30] The court found that under this definition, trans women could be excluded from female only spaces, including changing rooms and homeless shelters;[31] and that trans men could be excluded from female spaces in the same manner as trans women, "because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance".[32]

We are aware that this is a long judgment. It may assist therefore if we summarise our reasoning. […]

(v) Section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 (Gender Recognition Act 2004) disapplies the rule in section 9(1) of that Act where the words of legislation, enacted before or after the commencement of the GRA 2004, are on careful consideration interpreted in their context and having regard to their purpose to be inconsistent with that rule. It is not necessary that there are express words disapplying the rule in section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 or that such disapplication arises by necessary implication as the legality principle does not apply (paras 99–104).

(vi) The context in which the EA 2010 (Equality Act 2010) was enacted was therefore that the SDA 1975 (Sex Discrimination Act 1975) definitions of "man" and "woman" referred to biological sex and trans people had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. […]

— paragraph 265 of the judgment

Lord Hodge also re-affirmed that the ruling does not affect the Equality Act 2010's protections from discrimination by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, acknowledging that trans people were a vulnerable population that "struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity". He warned that the judgment should not be seen as "a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another."[33][34][15] The judges also insisted that despite their decision, trans people can still bring sex discrimination cases "not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender".[35] The judgement also does not change or invalidate the Gender Recognition Act or the process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate.[36][37][38]

The judges did not not rule more broadly on whether trans women are women in other contexts, stating that it was not the court's role to "[adjudicate] on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word 'woman' other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010."[36][39][15]

Response

Governmental and political

The Scottish government stated that it had "acted in good faith in our interpretation of both the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010" and "was guided by the published guidance of the Equality and Human Rights Commission", and it affirmed that the country would remain "fully committed to protecting everyone's rights, to ensure that Scotland remains an inclusive country".[34]

Melanie Field, a former civil servant who oversaw the drafting and passage of the original Equality Act 2010 who later became the executive director of the Equality and Human Rights Commission until 2023, said that the act was drafted explicitly with the goal of granting transgender people with GRCs the same legal status as cisgender counterparts, with granting transgender women with GRCs the same protections as cisgender women "the clear premise" of the bill. She stated "there are likely to be unintended consequences of this very significant change of interpretation from the basis on which the legislation was drafted and considered by parliament".[40][41] Harriet Harman said that the ruling of the Supreme Court gave effect to the intention of those who drafted it (which included herself).[42]

Kishwer Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), stated on Today that the ruling would be incorporated into its upcoming code of practice for women-only spaces enforceable by law. Falkner warned that "single-sex services like changing rooms must be based on biological sex", trans women would be prohibited from competing in women's sport, and stated that the NHS would "have to change" its policy of treating transgender patients in accordance with their declared gender. These were described as an "overrreach" by trans rights campaigners.[8][43][44] However, when asked if GRCs have now been rendered worthless, Falkner said: "We don't believe they are. We think they're quite important."[38] Falkner also suggested that trans rights groups should use their advocacy to campaign for unisex spaces (such as bathrooms), as it wasn't a legal requirement for facilities to have gender-specific spaces.[43]

On April 25, the EHRC released updated guidance to this effect, declaring trans women to be "biological men" and trans men to be "biological women". The guidance applied to any school, workplace, sporting body, publicly accessible service (such as restaurants, shops, hospitals, or shelters), and any association of 25 people or more. The guidance stated that while trans women and trans men should be barred from facilities matching their gender, they can also be restricted from facilities matching their sex, and that only providing mixed-sex facilities could constitute discrimination against women. It did, however, say that trans people should not be left without any facilities to use. The guidance also stated that transgender men should be barred from gay men's spaces and transgender women should be barred from lesbian spaces.[45][46]

A spokesperson for the British Transport Police said that trans women in their custody would be strip searched by male officers.[47][48]

A spokesperson for the national Labour Party government stated that the ruling had brought "clarity and confidence" for women and service providers, adding that "single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government". Labour Minister for Women and Equalities Bridget Phillipson said that trans women should use male facilities, and listed toilets, hospitals, shelters, and rape crisis centers as examples.[49][50][51] The Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that "a woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear", adding that "I actually welcome the judgment because I think it gives real clarity".[5][6] LGBT+ Labour stated they were "deeply dissapointed" by the judgement, that it "risks undermining trans people’s access to vital services, workplaces, and spaces where they have long been included" at a time when transgender people are "already facing rising levels of hate crime, hostility, and misinformation", and that they stand "in full solidarity" with the trans community.[52]

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch described the judgment as a "victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious", and declared that "the era of [Labour Party leader] Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end."[7][53]

Maggie Chapman of the Scottish Greens condemned the judgment, saying "not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions in our society". Her comments were described as "disgraceful" by Akua Reindorf KC, a Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, while Joanna Cherry called for Chapman to resign.[54] Chapman's comments were denounced by the Faculty of Advocates, which described them as failing to "respect the rule of law", and "constitute an egregious breach of Ms Chapman's duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary". In a letter to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee—of which Chapman is deputy convenor — Roddy Dunlop KC called her comments "outrageous" and said that they created a risk of danger to members of the Supreme Court, and called for an apology and for Chapman to consider her position. Chapman stood by her comments and refused to apologise, saying that institutions and laws reflect transphobia and prejudice in society.[55]

Advocacy groups

Gender critical groups

Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland welcomed the ruling, stating "Today, the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, women are protected by their biological sex - that sex is real", adding that "We're just really glad common sense prevailed".[4] Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, said that "We're really proud [that they] thanked us for our cogent argument", concluding that "Everyone is going to have to pay attention to this, this is from the highest court in the land. It's saying sex in the Equality Act is biological sex. Self ID is dead."[56] Speaking on the exclusion of trans men from women's spaces, she said "Not being allowed into the mens by rule does not mean you have the right to go into the ladies" and "That may seem unfair, but these are life choices people make. If you make extreme efforts to look like a man don’t be surprised if you are denied entrance to ladies".[28] Kate Barker, chief executive of the LGB Alliance, stated that "the ruling confirms that the words 'gay' and 'lesbian' refer to same-sex sexual orientation and makes it absolutely clear that lesbians wishing to form associations of any size are lawfully entitled to exclude men—whether or not they possess a GRC".[42][34]

Pro-LGBTQ groups

Protest against the ruling at Marischal College in Aberdeen on 20 April 2025

Pro-LGBTQ groups considered the ruling to be a potential setback for transgender rights in the UK; Stonewall CEO Simon Blake stated that the organisation "shares the deep concern at the wide implications of the ruling", and considered it "incredibly worrying" for the trans community and its supporters, but that it would "continue its work with the Government and parliamentarians to achieve equal rights under the law for LGBTQ+ people", and that "it's important to be reminded the Court strongly and clearly re-affirmed the Equality Act protects all trans people against discrimination, based on Gender Reassignment, and will continue to do so."[34] TransActual director Jane Fae told The Washington Post that they feared the ruling could result in "total exclusion and segregation" for trans women, and that "the number of people I have come across on social platforms, on forums, etc., saying 'How do I go on? I am in tears, I'm in pieces. I am shattered. I am broken', that seems to be a pretty much a unanimous reaction."[57] Amnesty International UK stated that "it would take time to analyze the full implications. There are potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment."[36]

Writing in The Independent, Good Law Project founder Jolyon Maugham criticised the lack of testimony from either trans individuals or advocacy groups in the proceedings, noting in the case of the latter that they likely did not apply to be heard "[because] they knew from bitter experience what legal proceedings involve. They mean punishment beatings in the right-wing press, that the Charity Commission is likely to investigate, that their staff will face threats of violence and that it may well kill off the organisation altogether." He stated that trans legal experts Stephen Whittle and Victoria McCloud applied to be heard but "without even giving reasons, the Supreme Court flatly refused to accept their application to be heard. As a result, this appeal was left with not even one trans person giving evidence." He argued that "the decision to shut out from the hearing the people most closely affected by it made the decision weaker", and that the ruling was "the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling."[26] Good Law Project stated that they were exploring the possibility of appealing the case to the European Court of Human Rights.[38] McCloud said "I think this will be the kicking-off point for a very enhanced push for overt restrictions on the rights of trans people".[58]

Over the Easter long weekend of 18–20 April, protests against the ruling were held in towns and cities throughout the UK.[59] Thousands gathered for a rally at London's Parliament Square on 19 April, organized by a group of 24 pro-LGBTQ groups.[60] Seven statues were vandalised during the London protests, including the statue of former Union of South Africa prime minister Jan Smuts (which was spray painted with the message "Trans rights are human rights"), and the statue of women's suffrage activist Millicent Fawcett (which had "Fag rights" written onto it).[61][62] 29 protests were planned for the weekend of 26-27 April.[63]

Arts and culture

J. K. Rowling, who had donated £70,000 to For Women Scotland in support of the case, made a series of posts on Twitter celebrating 16 April as "TERF VE Day".[64]

Meanwhile, the slogan “Protect The Dolls” - taken from a T-shirt designed and worn by Conner Ives in support of trans rights - quickly became what GQ Magazine described as “a rallying cry” among a wide array of actors, models, musicians, and artists in support of the rights of trans women.[65][66][67]

Irish actress Nicola Coughlan announced that she would hold a fundraiser for the trans rights charity Not A Phase, matching donations up to £10,000. The campaign had raised over £70,000 by 18 April 2025.[68]

Performing arts union Equity stated it was "deeply concerned" by the ruling, and called for other trade unions to "stand in solidarity with those affected by the judgment and to defend trans women and men in the workplace and all walks of life." General secretary Paul W. Fleming stated that Equity would be "urgently regrouping to ensure we defend and advocate for trans artists, and others affected."[69]

On 23 April 2025, an open letter was addressed to the UK arts and culture sector, calling for it to "meet this moment with bravery and solidarity", amid the ruling and the growing number of hate crimes targeting the trans community. It stated that "cultural conversations are hugely important to how people are perceived and treated in society, and it is paramount that trans visibility, representation and protection be an ongoing and sustained commitment for all arts organisations going forward, with quantifiable efforts to promote trans voices and stories." The letter was signed by over 1,300 writers across the British literature and screenwriting industries, including Michaela Coel, Russell T Davies, and Alice Oseman among others.[70]

International

Australia's sex discrimination commissioner Anna Cody condemned the ruling, stating that "Human rights belong to everyone. Trans and gender diverse people should be safe, respected and legally recognised".[71]

Following the ruling, Ireland's Equality Minister, Norma Foley reassured trans people in Ireland that the ruling would not impact them, saying "It is important to note that the UK's Equal Status Act is not equivalent to the Irish Equality Acts, with separate grounds of discrimination and different wording in both pieces of legislation."[72]

See also

References

  1. ^ For Women Scotland Limited v The The Scottish Ministers [2023] CSOH 2023_CSIH_37
  2. ^ Haq, Sana Noor (16 April 2025). "UK Supreme Court says legal definition of 'woman' excludes trans women, in landmark ruling". CNN. Archived from the original on 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  3. ^ a b c Riedel, Samantha (16 April 2025). "U.K. Supreme Court Rules That Trans Men Are Not Men and Trans Women Are Not Women". Them. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  4. ^ a b McArdle, Tom (16 April 2025). "For Women Scotland crack open champagne as they celebrate victory". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 22 April 2025.
  5. ^ a b Aubrey Allegretti; Geraldine Scott (22 April 2025). "Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women". The Times. Retrieved 22 April 2025.
  6. ^ a b McKiernan & Zeffman (22 April 2022). "Starmer does not believe trans women are women, No 10 says". bbc.co.uk. BBC. Retrieved 18 April 2022.
  7. ^ a b c "Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman". BBC News. 15 April 2025. Archived from the original on 16 April 2025. Retrieved 16 April 2025.
  8. ^ a b Carrell, Severin; Davies, Caroline (17 April 2025). "Trans activists accuse UK equalities chief of 'overreach' for suggesting bans". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 20 April 2025.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Holt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b "Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018". legislation.gov.uk. 10 March 2018. Archived from the original on 26 August 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  11. ^ a b c Kagoo, Isabel (12 March 2024). "Defining Woman - The Contentious Legal Battle Over the Definition of 'Woman' in Scotland". StAndrews Law Review. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  12. ^ a b c d "For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent)". Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  13. ^ "Row over definition of 'woman' in Scotland to be considered by Supreme Court". The National. 16 February 2024. Archived from the original on 16 February 2024. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  14. ^ "Campaigners in court win over 'woman' definition". BBC News. 18 February 2022. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  15. ^ a b c d "For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) - UK Supreme Court". supremecourt.uk. Archived from the original on 16 April 2025. Retrieved 16 April 2025.
  16. ^ a b c "Campaigners lose definition of 'woman' appeal bid". BBC News. 1 November 2023. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  17. ^ "Government wins legal case over definition of woman". BBC News. 13 December 2022. Archived from the original on 17 December 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  18. ^ a b "UK's highest court set to rule on definition of a woman". The Independent. 26 November 2024. Archived from the original on 28 November 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  19. ^ a b Brooks, Libby (16 April 2025). "How UK court definition of 'woman' could affect sex-based rights". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 April 2025.
  20. ^ a b "Appeal over Court of Session ruling on definition of 'woman'". BBC News. 3 October 2023. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  21. ^ a b Murphy, Will (16 April 2025). "UK Supreme Court Decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers". Cornerstone Barristers. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
  22. ^ a b c d e "Defining 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 — Inside the For Women Scotland v the Scottish Ministers appeal". Law Society of Scotland. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
  23. ^ "Doyle Clayton clients prevail in landmark Supreme Court decision". www.doyleclayton.co.uk. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
  24. ^ "Scottish Lesbians to intervene in For Women Scotland's Supreme Court appeal". Scottish Legal News. 11 October 2024. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
  25. ^ Brooks, Libby (28 March 2024). "Transgender judge seeks leave to intervene in UK court case over legal definition of 'woman'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 April 2025.
  26. ^ a b Maugham, Jolyon (16 April 2025). "We left it to the Supreme Court to decide 'what a woman is' – they chose wrong". The Independent. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  27. ^ Riedel, Samantha (27 November 2024). "U.K. Supreme Court Begins Case Deciding Whether Trans Women Can Be Legally Considered "Female"". Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  28. ^ a b Lewis, Sophie (23 April 2025). "The UK's Anti-Trans Ruling Is a Defeat for All Women". ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  29. ^ Lawless, Jill (16 April 2025). "How did the UK Supreme Court define a woman and what happens now?". ABC News. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  30. ^ Scott, Geraldine; Manning, Sanchez; Sanderson, Daniel (16 April 2025). "Organisations 'must revisit policies' after Supreme Court trans ruling". www.thetimes.com. Retrieved 16 April 2025.
  31. ^ "Supreme Court ruling just the latest curb on trans rights worldwide". The Independent. 17 April 2025. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  32. ^ Bland, Archie (17 April 2025). "What a landmark supreme court ruling on biological sex does – and doesn't – mean". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  33. ^ "What does Supreme Court definition of a woman ruling mean?". BBC News. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 16 April 2025.
  34. ^ a b c d Perry, Sophie (16 April 2025). "'We'll get through this together': Reactions to Supreme Court's trans ruling". PinkNews. Retrieved 16 April 2025.
  35. ^ Perry, Sophie (16 April 2025). "Four key takeaways from the Supreme Court's 'definition of a woman' ruling". PinkNews. Retrieved 23 April 2025.
  36. ^ a b c "U.K. Top Court Says Trans Women Are Not Legally Women Under Equality Act". New York Times. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  37. ^ "What does the transgender rights ruling mean?". The Telegraph. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  38. ^ a b c "What Supreme Court's gender ruling means for workplaces, hospitals and sports". Yahoo News. 17 April 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  39. ^ "The supreme court didn't rule on the definition of 'a woman' – this is what its judgment does mean". The Guardian. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  40. ^ Carrell, Severin; Brooks, Libby (18 April 2025). "Court ruling on 'woman' at odds with UK Equality Act aim, says ex-civil servant". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 19 April 2025.
  41. ^ "Supreme Court ruling on definition of a woman 'at odds' with goals of UK Equality Act, ex-civil servant tells LBC". LBC. Retrieved 19 April 2025.
  42. ^ a b "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex". bbc.co.uk. BBC. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 20 April 2025.
  43. ^ a b "Public bodies face 'enforcement' of biological sex policies, watchdog warns". The National. 17 April 2025. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  44. ^ Billson, Chantelle (17 April 2025). "NHS warned it will be 'pursued' if it doesn't change gender policies". PinkNews. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  45. ^ "An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment | EHRC". www.equalityhumanrights.com. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  46. ^ Grammaticas, Damian (26 April 2025). "EHRC issues interim guidance on single-sex spaces". BBC. Retrieved 26 April 2025.
  47. ^ "Trans women to be strip searched by male transport police after court ruling". Sky News. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  48. ^ Staff, Al Jazeera. "Trans women aren't legally women: What the UK Supreme Court ruling means". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  49. ^ "Campaigners warn of Supreme Court ruling impact on trans people". BBC News. 17 April 2025. Archived from the original on 17 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  50. ^ "Westminster's tortuous battle with the gender question". www.bbc.com. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  51. ^ "Trans women should use male toilets, equalities minister says". The Independent. 22 April 2025. Retrieved 22 April 2025.
  52. ^ "LGBT+ Labour's Statement following the Supreme Court Judgment on FWS v The Scottish Ministers". LGBT+ Labour. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  53. ^ "Labour Minister Says Tories Should Apologise For Past Pro-Trans Women Stance". Yahoo News. 17 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  54. ^ Learmonth, Andrew (22 April 2025). "Maggie Chapman accuses Supreme Court of 'bigotry'". The Herald. Retrieved 22 April 2025.
  55. ^ "Lawyers criticise MSP's attack on gender ruling". BBC News. 22 April 2025. Retrieved 23 April 2025.
  56. ^ McArdle, Tom. "Self-ID is dead, declare gender-critical campaigners". Daily Telegraph. No. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 22 April 2025.
  57. ^ "Transgender women in Britain fear ruling could place toilets, sports and hospitals off limits". Washington Post. 17 April 2025. Archived from the original on 17 April 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  58. ^ Murray, Jessica (16 April 2025). "'A huge reset': gender-critical activists and trans rights campaigners react to supreme court ruling". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  59. ^ Billson, Chantelle (18 April 2025). "Protests against trans Supreme Court ruling to be held across UK this weekend". PinkNews. Retrieved 20 April 2025.
  60. ^ Tapper, James (19 April 2025). "'One hell of a turnout': trans activists rally in London against gender ruling". The Observer. Retrieved 20 April 2025.
  61. ^ Grew, Tony (20 April 2025). "Damage to statues investigated after trans protest". BBC News. Archived from the original on 20 April 2025. Retrieved 20 April 2025.
  62. ^ Tom McArdle; Dominic Penna; Daniel Martin; Ruth Hallows (20 April 2025). "Nelson Mandela statue among seven vandalised during trans protest". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 20 April 2025.
  63. ^ Theil, Michele (25 April 2025). "More protests against trans Supreme Court ruling to be held across UK this weekend". Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  64. ^ "'Harry Potter' author JK Rowling faces backlash to anti-trans comments". USA Today. 18 April 2025. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  65. ^ Chang, Mahalia (25 April 2025). "The Story Behind Pedro Pascal's 'Protect the Dolls' Shirt". GQ. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  66. ^ "Conner Ives Wants You to Actually Protect the Dolls". ELLE. 24 April 2025. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  67. ^ "Pedro Pascal's 'Protect The Dolls' T-Shirt Is Fashion Activism At Its Finest". Grazia. 23 April 2025. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  68. ^ "Nicola Coughlan Raised Over £70,000 for Trans Rights Following U.K. Court Ruling". them.us. 18 April 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  69. ^ "Thousands demonstrate for trans rights". LRD. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  70. ^ "Michaela Coel among writers expressing solidarity with the trans community". The Pink News. 24 April 2025. Retrieved 24 April 2025.
  71. ^ "'Not the laws of Australia': Sex discrimination chief reacts to UK ruling on definition of a woman". SBS News. 17 April 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  72. ^ "Irish law will protect transgender people from discrimination following landmark court ruling in UK". Irish Independent. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Women_Scotland_Ltd_v_The_Scottish_Ministers&oldid=1287788449"