On April 16, 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously and definitively that, in the context of the Equality Act 2010, the terms “woman” and “sex” exclusively mean biological sex. This landmark decision will affect gender-based rights and protections across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The case was brought by the feminist pressure group For Women Scotland regarding the Scottish government’s understanding of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The law was intended to create gender balance on public sector boards by defining transgender women, those born male but who had legally changed genders, as being “women” under the law.

For Women Scotland argued that this interpretation exceeded the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence and was inconsistent with the Equality Act 2010. They said the definition of “woman” should be based on biological sex to protect the integrity of single-sex spaces and services. The Supreme Court decision confirmed that for the Equality Act, “woman” and “sex” relate to biological sex. So, under this particular legislation, when it comes to people who have transitioned and gained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), they are not legally recognised as women.

The court stressed that while the protected characteristic of gender reassignment covered transgender people, the 2010 definition of “sex” in the Equality Act is “still based on biology.” This distinction is critical in single-sex exemptions, such as women-only shelters, sports teams and hospital wards. The ruling carries significant implications for interpreting and applying equality laws in the UK. By specifying that “sex” refers to biological sex, the verdict gives a legal basis to organizations and institutions that have adopted single-sex spaces and services.

Check out this article: Is Rihanna Secretly Shooting a Music Video in Paris?

Supporters of the ruling, such as For Women Scotland, maintain that it strengthens the rights and protections of biological women, guaranteeing that places meant for women are restricted to those born female. They cite this clarity as necessary for protecting privacy, safety, and fairness. On the other hand, groups advocating for transgender rights believe the ruling could bring worse treatment and exclusion of transgender people from facilities and services that match their gender identity. The decision drew condemnation from groups like Amnesty International, which called it a blow against the rights and dignity of transgender people.

The UK government later issued a statement welcoming the ruling, arguing it would help defend the importance of single-sex spaces. The ruling continues the government’s previous position that biological sex has legal significance in some pornography law contexts. In Scotland, the measure is a blow to the Scottish government’s plans to legislate for gender inclusivity. The ruling highlights the extent of devolved powers when challenged in light of UK-wide equality desires.

Responses from public figures and advocacy groups are divided. J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, is a staunch voice against such a narrative and has already endorsed For Women Scotland calls in the past. In parallel, LGBTQ+ and allied advocacy groups strive for the inclusion of policies that may permit and reflect gender identity in legal constructs. The decision of the Supreme Court establishes an approach that other legislation and policies on gender/sex in the UK are likely to be influenced by. It highlights a longstanding tension between biological definitions of sex and the recognition of gender identity in law. The challenges posed by such an opinion only point to societal divisions as we try to understand and grapple with the rights (or crimes) of those who may not identify with conventional labels.