Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers

2025 UK Supreme Court case From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers
Remove ads

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

Quick facts Court, Argued ...

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 lower 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. In hearing the case, the court accepted interventions from four additional parties, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Amnesty International. An application for intervention by two transgender legal experts made with the support of the Good Law Project was rejected, which resulted in no trans parties being permitted to intervene. The court found in a unanimous decision that, when referring to the Equality Act 2010, the terms man, woman, and sex were always intended 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 the Equality Act, and they stated that their ruling would not invalidate the Gender Recognition Act or discrimination protections offered to transgender people under the Equality Act.[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] Labour 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 result in restrictions on 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.

Remove ads

Background

Summarize
Perspective

In 2002, the European Court of Human Rights issued two judgements finding that the UK was breaching human rights by failing to legally recognize the acquired gender of trans people. This led to the passage of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which allowed trans people to legally change their gender through a Gender Recognition 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", that 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 stautory guidance to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 was amended on 19 April 2022 to remove the previous definition of "woman", stating 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 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, that the definition of "sex" per the Equality Act 2010 was "not limited to biological or birth sex", and that the definition "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]

Remove ads

Interventions and hearing

Summarize
Perspective

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 (referred to as "the lesbian interveners").[22][23][12] Sex Matters and the EHRC were additionally permitted to make oral arguments at the hearing.[21][22] An application for intervention by two transgender legal experts - Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle - made with the support of the Good Law Project was rejected, which resulted in no trans parties being permitted to intervene.[3][24][25][26]

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.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.[22]

Remove ads

Judgment

Summarize
Perspective

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment after the case was argued in November 2024. The court found in 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 it concluded 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"[27] The ruling did not mention intersex people.[28]

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.[29] The court found that under this definition, trans women could be excluded from female only spaces, including changing rooms and homeless shelters;[30] it also found 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."[31]

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."[32][33][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".[34] The judgement also does not change or invalidate the Gender Recognition Act or the process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate.[35][36][37]

The judges did 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."[35][38][15]

On 27 May 2025 the Supreme Court confirmed that the Scottish Government would be required to pay For Women Scotland's costs and expenses.[39]

Remove ads

Response

Summarize
Perspective

Participants

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]

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".[33]

In August 2025, For Women Scotland made a legal application for the Scottish government’s policies on schools and prisons to be quashed, on the basis that they were not in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment.[40]

Interveners

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.[8][41][42] However, when asked if GRCs have now been rendered worthless, Falkner said: "We don't believe they are. We think they're quite important."[37] Falkner also suggested that trans rights groups should use their advocacy to campaign for unisex spaces (such as toilets), as it was not a legal requirement for facilities to have gender-specific spaces.[41]

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."[4] 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".[27]

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".[43][33] Barker also accused Stonewall of offering "duff legal advice" over the past decade to the transgender community regarding gender self-identification.[44]

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."[35]

Governmental and political

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.[45][46][47] 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 disappointed" 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.[48]

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 Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end."[7][49]

Labour peer and former deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman said that the ruling of the Supreme Court gave effect to the intention of those who drafted it (which included herself), stating "Single sex spaces for women are important & can exclude trans women but only where necessary".[43] Melanie Field, a former civil servant who was the lead official of the Equality Act 2010, overseeing its drafting and passage, said that treating transgender women with GRCs as women in relation to sex discrimination protections was "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".[50][51]

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.[52] 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.[53] A motion brought by Conservative MSP Tess White to have Chapman removed from the Committee over the issue was unsuccessful.[54]

The Welsh Government released a statement accepting the decision of the Supreme Court, noting that the judgment did not remove protection from trans people, and reaffirming an ongoing commitment to equality and inclusion.[55]

Advocacy groups

LGBTQ groups

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

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."[33] TransActual director Jane Fae told The Washington Post that she 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."[56]

Victoria McCloud announced an intention to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that it failed to hear the human rights arguments from individuals, and stating that the judgment "has left me two sexes at once, which is a nonsense".[57] In a speech at Pride in London's June 2025 Human Rights Forum, McCloud called on the Lemkin Institute and Genocide Watch to review attacks on transgender rights by the UK's government and public bodies.[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 the banner it was holding).[61][62]

On 2 May, fourteen national LGBTQ+ charities including Stonewall and the LGBT Consortium sent a letter to the prime minister requesting a meeting, saying the ruling had created "confusion and a significant lack of clarity", upended the understanding of the Equality act creating "a legal framework that simply cannot uphold the dignity, protection and respect of trans people", and represented "a genuine crisis for the rights, dignity and inclusion of trans people in the UK".[63] The Times described Stonewall as "incorrectly stating" that the ruling is not yet law and need not be followed.[64] Campaign group Sex Matters wrote to Stonewall describing it as "encouraging [organisations] to act unlawfully".[64] Sex Matters said it would complain to the Charity Commission unless Stonewall retracted the statement.[64]

Later in the month, Birmingham Pride, Brighton Pride, London Pride, and Manchester Pride—the four largest Pride events in the United Kingdom—jointly announced that they would prohibit political parties from sending official representatives to their events, in "unequivocal solidarity" with the trans community. Pride Glasgow would follow suit.[65][66]

Ahead of the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia on 17 May, 23 Pride organizations in Scotland issued a joint statement that they were "deeply alarmed by the escalation in the demonisation of LGBTQIA+ people, particularly trans individuals, both at home and abroad", stating that the ruling and EHRC interim guidance are a "serious threat to the rights of trans people". They further criticized "the influence of the anti-LGBTQIA+ lobby in both the UK and Scottish Governments"[67]

In late June, leading UK trans groups issued a joint letter to the Council of Europe's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to express their "grave concerns" over current UK trans rights policies, specifically criticizing the EHRC and arguing they violated the European Convention on Human Rights.[58][68] In July, TransLuscent requested the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions investigate the EHRC, arguing its conduct following the ruling had been unlawful and in violation of the Paris Principles.[69]

Other groups

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."[25]

On 30 June 2025, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention issued a Red Flag Alert for the genocide of transgender and intersex people in The United Kingdom. The institute believe that "[...] the practical repercussions for trans and intersex individuals are clear and serious." and that "If the [EHRC] guidance does become law, it would make transition impossible in the UK. Life as a transitioned person would become unbearable." and that the ruling by The Supreme Court and the guidance by the EHRC means that "All of the actions described above fit neatly into the 9th Pattern of Genocide".[70][71]

Academic and medical

The British Medical Association's Resident Doctors Committee passed a motion at their annual conference which condemned "the Supreme Court ruling defining the term 'woman' with respect to the Equality Act as being based on 'biological sex', which they refer to as a person who was at birth of the female sex, as reductive, trans and intersex-exclusionary and biologically nonsensical." They described it as a "scientifically illiterate" ruling made without consulting relevant stakeholders which would cause harm.[72][73][74] Sex Matters criticised the motion, saying that the doctors "misunderstand the role of the Supreme Court, which interprets the law rather than creating it or reflecting public opinion".[74][75]

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".[76]

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.[77][78][79][80]

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."[81]

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. 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.[82]

International

Human Rights Watch described the ruling as "severely regressive" and in the context of "an often toxic debate about trans rights in the UK, in which trans people are portrayed as a threat to the safety of others". They stated the court "failed to enumerate how" protection for trans people under the law "can be effectively implemented", and called on parliament "to amend the Equalities Act to make clear that sex-based protections apply to trans people with a gender recognition certificate."[83]

ILGA-Europe, which ranks countries based on their LGBTQ rights protections, dropped the United Kingdom to 22nd in Europe - the lowest position for the UK since the rankings started in 2009. Between 2011 and 2015 it had been ranked at the top of the list. All points related to legal gender recognition were removed in response to the ruling and EHRC guidance. ILGA stated "It is, in fact, impossible for a trans person to be fully legally recognised in their gender identity within the legal framework created by the judgment and interim update."[84]

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".[85]

Following the ruling, a spokesperson for 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."[86]

Remove ads

Impact

Summarize
Perspective

Interim guidance

On 25 April, the EHRC released updated guidance in line with the ruling, 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 and women should be barred from gay men's spaces and lesbian spaces respectively.[87][88][89]

The EHRC interim guidance was described by transgender campaigners as a "bigoted attempt to segregate trans people in public spaces", with campaign groups warning about forced outing and harmful effects on trans lives, and stating it could be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.[90] The Green Party co-leaders issued a statement that the guidance was "ill-considered and impractical" and "could put trans people at risk of discrimination in the workplace, and is overly prescriptive in a way that seems to fly in the face of the tolerance that we value in this country". They stated "it doesn't seem right that a lesbian organisation or space that wants to include trans women should be prevented from doing so".[90][91][92] The House of Commons' Women and Equalities Committee wrote to Falkner asking for the consultation period to be extended and for the process to not ignore the needs of transgender people. One EHRC source stated that most staff, including senior ones and those who work with sex and gender, were not notified or consulted about the interim guidance before it was published.[93][94]

In mid-May, the EHRC extended its consultation period from two to six weeks following internal and external criticism.[93][94] On 16 May, the Good Law Project sent a letter before action to the EHRC, stating their guidance "authorises and approves unlawful discrimination" and they would "be challenging that guidance on the basis that it is irrational and/or wrong in law". They further stated that if the EHRC interpretation was correct, it would place the UK in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.[95][96]

On 27 August the EHRC stated that it had written to 19 organisations whose stated policies "contain specific language that wrongly suggests there is an automatic legal right to access single-sex spaces based on self-identification".[97]

Sports

On 29 April 2025, the Scottish Football Association banned transgender women from participating in women's football from the next season.[98][99] On 1 May, The Football Association announced that transgender women would no longer be able to play in women's football in England from 1 June.[100] On the same day, England Netball announced that it would be banning transgender women from women's netball from 1 September 2025, and that a mixed netball game would be made available.[101] On 2 May, the England and Wales Cricket Board announced that a previous ban on transgender women in elite women's cricket was extended to recreational cricket with immediate effect.[102]

In the first legal case to use the "FWS" judgement, the Equality Act discrimination claim of billiards player Harriet Haynes, who is trans and has a Gender Recognition Certificate and an updated Birth Certificate giving the Sex of Female, was dismissed on 1st August 2025 by Justice Parker. Haynes was excluded from the English Blackball Pool Federation's women's competition on the base of legal sex (under FWS, Haynes has the Sex of Male), and was not discriminated against on the basis of gender reassignment. Justice Parker comments "I am not sure whether the Claimant’s case is now that I should interpret the Act in a way that is contrary to FWS, or whether instead it is that I can distinguish FWS while adopting the Claimant’s interpretation of the EA 2010 (whatever that interpretation may be). That makes it difficult for me to engage with or respond to the submission. I can only say that the County Court is bound to follow a Supreme Court authority, that I must therefore follow FWS, and that I cannot see any way to distinguish it."[103][104][105]


Other

In response to the ruling, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body announced on 9 May that all toilet facilities in Holyrood designated as either 'male' or 'female' would now be interpreted as referring to 'biological sex', and that a bank of three existing toilets in the public area of the building would be designated as a gender-neutral facility.[106]

A spokesperson for the British Transport Police said that trans women in their custody who required to be strip searched would now have this done by male officers.[107][108]

On 14 June 2025, the House of Commons apologised after a trans woman barrister used the women's toilets and was confronted by activists from For Women Scotland and the LGB Alliance. The House of Commons says she should not have been told to use the women's facilities.[109] On 24 June, the House of Commons changed its rules to require that "visitors should therefore use toilet facilities which correspond to their biological sex, or use one of the gender-neutral or accessible facilities that are available".

An estimated 900 trans people and their supporters (including Kate Nash) demonstrated at Parliament the next day, seeking to meet with MPs to advocate against anti-trans positions. According to Diva, it was the most important LGBTQIA+ lobby, surpassing the number of demonstrators who protested against section 28 in the 1980s.[110][111][112]

On 29 June 2025 Keir Starmer stated that he "accepted the ruling; welcomed the ruling, and everything else flows from that as far as I’m concerned", adding that "All guidance of whatever kind needs to be consistent with the ruling and we need to get to that position as soon as possible".[113]

Remove ads

See also

References

External links

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads
Remove ads