is a leading UK Supreme Court decision on the statutory interpretation of the terms man and woman in the Equality Act 2010 and the application of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
The case was brought by For Women Scotland (FWS), an anti-transgender, gender-critical feminist, Scottish campaign group. From 2018 to 2023, FWS brought judicial review challenges against the Scottish government's definition of man and woman. In 2023, the Inner House of the Court of Session found that the definitions under the Equality Act 2010 included transgender persons who had obtained a gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. On a further appeal to the Supreme Court, FWS argued that the Equality Act's definitions referred to "biological sex" and that the Scottish government's issued guidance was invalid.
The Court heard submissions in 2024, with four intervenors, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and Amnesty International. An application by two transgender legal experts for intervention was denied, such that no trans parties were permitted to intervene. In a unanimous decision, the court found that the terms man, woman, and sex under the Equality Act 2010 were always intended to refer to biological sex, and not gender or gender identity.
In reaching its decision, the court also held that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was not generally applicable to all statutes, such that trans people were always legally recognised as having the gender they identify with. The judges did not rule more broadly on when trans women would be considered women in contexts outside the Equality Act. The court believed that the decision would not deprive trans people of their legal rights, in part because of the discrimination protections offered to transgender people under the Equality Act 2010.
The ruling was welcomed by gender-critical groups, Cabinet ministers, and Members of Parliament across both the Conservative and Labour parties. As a result of the decision, the EHRC issued new guidance on transgender issues, restricting the ability of trans people to access single-sex spaces such as toilets. The decision and subsequent EHRC guidance has been widely criticised by academics and pro-LGBTQ activists for being medically and legally flawed, with potentially severe implications for transgender rights in the UK.
Background In 2002, the European Court of Human Rights in Goodwin v United Kingdom found that the UK was breaching the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to legally recognise the acquired gender of trans people. This led to the passage of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004), which allowed trans people to legally change their gender through a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) with support of two doctors and evidence of living in their acquired gender for 2 years.
From 2018 to 2023, the gender-critical advocacy group For Women Scotland (FWS) raised a series of judicial review challenges against trans-inclusive policies of the Scottish government before the Court of Session in Scotland. The final decision in 2023 saw the Inner House rule that the definition of woman under the Equality Act 2010 included trans women who had a GRC. FWS appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, engaging King's Counsel Aidan O'Neill after a crowdfunding campaign; of the approximately £300,000 raised, £70,000 was donated by author J. K. Rowling.
Judicial review of devolved legislation In 2018, Scotland passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act (Scotland) 2018, a law that requires public authorities with boards to encourage participation by women. The legislation as assented contained a definition of "woman" that:includes a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010) if, and only if, the person 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.In 2021, the Outer House of the Court of Session of Scotland heard a judicial review application brought by the gender-critical advocacy group For Women Scotland (FWS). The decision was in favour of the Scottish Ministers. In February 2022, following an appeal by FWS, the ruling was overturned by the Inner House of the Court of Session.
As a result of this ruling, the statutory guidance to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 was published on 19 April 2022 that stated that "woman" was simply 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 recognised by their "acquired gender".
Subsequent judicial review of statutory guidance In July 2022, FWS petitioned for judicial review of the statutory guidance. In December 2022, Lady Haldane ruled in favour of the Scottish Ministers, stating that the updated statutory guidance was lawful; the definition of "sex" per the Equality Act 2010 was "not limited to biological or birth sex"; and the definition "includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex".
In October 2023, FWS appealed the decision, arguing that the ruling conflated sex and gender in a manner that was "unworkable and impractical". On 1 November 2023, the Inner House dismissed the appeal. Lady Dorrian held that the legal definition of a person's sex was that of their "acquired gender" if they received a GRC.
Hearing Oral arguments were heard at the Supreme Court from 26 to 27 November 2024. The Supreme Court allowed two intervenors to make written and oral submissions (Sex Matters and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)) and another two intervenors to make written submissions only (Amnesty International and a group of three campaigning organisations comprising the LGB Alliance, The Lesbian Project, and Scottish Lesbians). 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.
For Women Scotland argued that "sex" in the Equality Act always referenced "biological sex". Sex Matters' intervention largely agreed, noting that the Equality Act's "gender reassignment" definition did not relate to biological sex but was sui generis. The campaigning group submitted on the potential effects of a trans-inclusive definition on the rights of lesbians under the Equality Act, also making arguments under the European Convention of Human Rights.
The Scottish Government argued that "woman" in the Equality Act includes a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the "acquired gender" of female as defined under the GRA 2004. The EHRC agreed with this position and argued that, although this interpretation would result in practical issues under the EA 2010, these issues were for Parliament to resolve. Amnesty International made submissions on human rights principles.
Judgment
On 16 April 2025, the Lord Hodge, on behalf of the Supreme Court, delivered the judgment, finding that the terms "man", "woman", and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) were "always intended" to refer to "biological sex", and not "certificated sex" under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004), and concluded that any other interpretation would cause the Act to be incoherent and impracticable to operate.
More specifically, the court considered the interaction between section 9(1) of the GRA 2004, a deeming provision which allowed trans people with GRCs to be recognised in law as having the sex of their "acquired gender", and sections 11 and 212(1) of the EA 2010. Section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 provided for an carve-out to the rule in section 9(1), and it was held to be operative upon the interpretation of "man" and "woman" under the EA 2010. For section 9(1) to apply to any given piece of legislation, it was held that a court had to "carefully consider" the "wording, context and policy" of an act. Where the court finds that the definition of sex or gender under section 9(1) resulted in "a clear incompatibility" or an act being "rendered incoherent or unworkable", it must disapply the section, which the Supreme Court did for the EA 2010.
The court summarised eighteen reasons to support the finding that the EA 2010 would be "rendered incoherent or unworkable" if the s 9(1) definition was used, including: the predecessor to the EA 2010, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, "referred to biological sex" as a matter of parliamentary intention; the GRA 2004 did not have retrospective effect on the 1975 Act; trans people already enjoy the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the EA 2010, which provides different rights than those arising from sex; and definitions under the EA 2010 ought to be interpreted consistently throughout the act, and a variable definition would be inappropriate given the provisions on pregnancy and women's rights. Nonetheless, the court did not clarify the definition of "biological sex" or "man" or "woman" in law, stating that they were "self-explanatory" and "require no further explanation".
Despite finding for For Women Scotland, the Supreme Court also stated that the decision would not disadvantage trans persons in law, noting also that trans persons retain rights against discrimination, harassment, and unequal pay on the basis of gender reassignment. Lord Hodge, in an interview with The Times, later clarified that the judgement had nothing to do with how or where single sex spaces should be created before adding trans people "had been led to believe... for the last 15 years that they had rights, which they didn't have".
The court found that under the "biological sex" definition, trans women could be excluded from female-only spaces, including changing rooms and homeless shelters; further, trans men could now also be excluded from female spaces in the same manner as trans women if they had a "masculine appearance".
As such, it allowed the appeal, invalidating the Scottish Government's guidance.
Reception
Immediate aftermath After the decision was issued by the Supreme Court, gender-critical activists celebrated with champagne outside the court building. Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, celebrated the decision as affirming "common sense" and that "women are protected by their biological sex". The Scottish government, speaking with BBC News, responded to its loss by saying that it had "acted in good faith" in interpreting the acts, following the guidance that had previously been issued by the EHRC.
Sex Matters stated that the decision meant that gender self-identification was "dead" and argued for the exclusion of trans persons who present as their identified gender from both male and female bathrooms. The LGB Alliance regarded the decision as protecting gay and lesbian rights by allowing gay and lesbian associations to exclude trans persons.
Amnesty International UK stated that the decision implied "potentially concerning consequences for trans people", although it was at the time too early to determine what those effects were. The NGO also emphasised the Supreme Court's affirmation that trans people should not be harassed or discriminated against per the Equality Act.
Advocacy and community groups
The decision was widely condemned by numerous LGBTQ organisations and activists, including Stonewall, TransActual, Victoria McCloud, and the LGBT Consortium. The decision was also criticised by Human Rights Watch and performing arts union Equity.