Supreme Court judges make landmark ruling on definition of a woman in huge decision

The Conservatives' shadow minister for women offers a "huge well done" to For Women Scotland for today's Supreme Court Win.

Mims Davies adds: "We Conservatives have been warning the Government for months about the preparation they would need to do ahead of this judgement - it's now time for them to clarify all existing guidance to make sure that public bodies are clear that sex means biological sex."

There are scenes of celebration outside the Supreme Court today, as women's rights activists delight in the ruling in favour of biology.

Reading out the Supreme Court's ruling, the judge insisted that transgender people still have human rights protections.

"As I shall explain later in this hand down speech, the Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, 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"

The BBC reports that there was an "audible intake of breath" from women's rights campaigners seating in the Supreme Court as the top judge revealed his judgement.

The corporation says that the Women's rights group's director, Marion Calder, wiped away a tear, while fellow campaigners patted each other on the back.

Maya Forstater, CEO of human rights charity Sex Matters: "We are delighted that the Supreme Court has accepted the arguments of For Women Scotland and rejected the position of the Scottish Government. The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not to paperwork."

Labour MP Kirsteen Sullivan has celebrated today's Supreme Court ruling, branding it a "clear, unequivocal judgement this morning".

Baroness Claire Fox says: "It's ridiculous how VERY relieved and delighted we all are. Utterly mad it's come to this but SHEROES @ForWomenScot have made a lot of us VERY happy to have confirmed that knowing what a woman is is not a sign of bigotry, but of biology, common sense and now law. Congrats to all whose bravery has paid off."

Rosie Duffield MP, one of parliament's most prominent women's rights voices, simply responds: "Phew!"

Reaction is already rolling in, with For Women Scotland - the group behind today's legal challenge - describing their supporters as "in tears" while watching the judgement from Edinburgh.

Maya Forstater added: "Biology wins!"

The Supreme Court Judge explains that the 2010 Equality Act was built on the Sex Discrimination Act which was based on biological sex.

He says interpreting sex as “certificated sex” - i.e. those transgender people with a gender recognition certificate - would “cut across the definitions of man and woman in the Equality Act”

"[As a] matter of ordinary language… the provisions [in the EA] can only be interpreted as refer to biological sex”

Supreme Court rules unanimously that sex and woman definitions in Equality Act 2010 refer to biological women.

In other words a woman is a biological female, and For Women Scotland have won today's appeal.

"The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex."

The court is still explaining its judgement

The Supreme Court is setting out how this case came about, thanks to new laws from the Scottish Government granting 'woman' status to trans women with gender recognition certificates.

This was challenged by a women's rights group 'For Women Scotland', however this failed in the Scottish courts and was sent up to the British Supreme Court.

Judges say equality act protection for trans people applies whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate

The court unanimously agrees that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a "biological woman, and biological sex".

One of the supreme court judges has asked those in attendance to remain silent following the ruling.

He concedes that some will be pleased and others disappointed with the decision.

They ask observers to respect the "dignity" of the proceedings.

When For Women Scotland’s legal argument was published ahead of November’s appeal, director Trina Budge said: “Not tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise of 50% men, and 50% men with certificates, yet still lawfully meet the targets for female representation.

“However, the ramifications of this case are much more far-reaching and all sex-based rights protected by the Equality Act are at risk.

“The stakes are high and the court’s decision will have consequences for everyday, single-sex services such as toilets and hospital wards.

“It will determine whether a pregnant woman with a GRC is entitled to maternity leave, what it means to be same-sex attracted, and whether a man with a GRC’s entitlement to join a group of lesbians takes priority over their right to freely associate with only women.

“Trans rights are protected under the separate category of gender reassignment but, to fully guarantee women’s rights, it is increasingly clear that a consistent, biological and factual understanding of sex is the only workable solution.”

During the hearing, Ruth Crawford KC, representing the Scottish Government, said a Gender Recognition Certificates affected a “change in legal status”, and that someone with a GRC “becomes recognised as belonging to, or becoming, the sex of their acquired gender”.

She added: “We submit there are only two sexes or genders, and a person whose sex becomes that of a man or woman in consequence of a GRC belongs to that sex, and will have the protection afforded under the Equality Act”.

The Scottish Government said they were unable to comment on live legal proceedings.

The matter first came to court in 2022, when For Women Scotland (FWS) successfully challenged the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 over its inclusion of trans women in its definition of women.

The Court of Session ruled that changing the definition of a woman in the act was unlawful, as it dealt with matters falling outside the Scottish Parliament’s legal competence.

Following the challenge, the Scottish Government dropped the definition from the act and issued revised statutory guidance – essentially, advice on how to comply with the law.

This stated that under the 2018 Act the definition of a woman was the same as that set out in the Equality Act 2010, and also that a person with a GRC recognising their gender as female had the sex of a woman.

FWS challenged this revised guidance on the grounds sex under the Equality Act referred to its biological meaning, and the Government was overstepping its powers by effectively redefining the meaning of “woman”.

However, its challenge was rejected by the Court of Session’s Outer House on December 13 2022.

The Inner House upheld that decision on November 1 2023 – but did grant FWS permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

The decision made today will set out exactly how the law is meant to treat transgender people, and what it really means to go through the gender recognition process.

Further implications could include how it affects the running of single-sex spaces and services, and how measures aimed at tackling discrimination will operate in future.

The ruling, to be announced at about 09.45am, is expected to set out how the law should treat transgender people.

The legal arguments have come at a time of heated debate on gender issues.

The Supreme Court is deciding on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain.

The law provides protection against discrimination on the basis of various characteristics, including "sex" and "gender reassignment".

The Scottish government argues transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to sex-based protections, while For Women Scotland argues they only apply to people that are born female.

The legal dispute began in 2018 when the Scottish Parliament passed a bill designed to ensure gender balance on public sector boards.

For Women Scotland complained that ministers had included transgender people as part of the quotas in that law.

After several cases in the Scottish courts, the issue has been sent to the Supreme Court in London for a final ruling.

For Women Scotland has warned that if the court sides with the government, it would have implications for the running of single-sex spaces and services, such as hospital wards, prisons, refuges and support groups.

Transgender people have warned the case could erode the protections they have against discrimination in their reassigned gender.