Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Explainer: The Supreme Court gender ruling
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Explainer: The Supreme Court gender ruling
The Supreme Court's decision on how to legally define a woman under equality law is having a wide impact on policies and guidance across the UK.
After the decision, which ruled that the definition of "woman" should be defined by biological sex only, there was confusion among charities and public bodies about how this would impact current policies on gender inclusion.
Ferret Fact Service takes a look at what the ruling does and does not say, and what its impact could be.
How did we get here?
The Supreme Court's ruling came as a result of several legal challenges, which began after the Scottish Parliament passed a bill in 2018 to tackle underrepresentation of women on the boards of public bodies.
The definition of "women" in the law included people who were living as a woman after gender reassignment, or were proposing to undergo the gender reassignment process.
This was challenged by For Women Scotland, a 'gender critical' campaigning organisation which opposes changes to gender recognition law.
This Scottish Government act was found to be unlawful in 2020 as it was legislating on equal opportunities, which is an area of law reserved to the UK Parliament.
A lot of legislation that becomes law in the Scottish and UK parliaments is underpinned by previous regulations. In this case the relevant legislation was the Equality Act, which came into force in 2010 and is enshrined in law across the UK.
After it was deemed unlawful, the Scottish Government released new guidance relating to its public bodies representation law, stating that the definition of a "woman" in the act was the same as it is in the Equality Act, which defines a woman as "a female of any age".
This included, according to the Scottish Government's guidance, anyone with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) which showed their gender as female. A GRC is a document that a transgender person can apply for, which means they are legally recognised as their affirmed gender.
This guidance was again challenged by For Women Scotland in 2022. The group argued that the definition of a woman in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, meaning that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate would not be considered a woman for the purposes of the law. This argument was rejected in Scotland's court of session but For Women Scotland appealed to the Supreme Court, the final and highest appeal court in the UK for civil cases.
The Supreme Court was asked to rule on how the Equality Act definition of a woman should be interpreted, and announced its decision in April this year.
What did the Supreme Court find?
The court upheld the appeal, finding that the definition of "woman", "man" and "sex" in the Equality Act refer to biological sex (this refers to the sex someone is assigned at birth). It stated that including those with a gender recognition certificate would make the Equality Act "incoherent and impracticable to operate".
The Scottish Government's guidance that a trans woman could be included under the definition of "woman" in the Equality Act was found to be incorrect.
In the judgment, Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler stated: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain 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 Equality Act 2010".
The finding, they said, does not remove protection from trans people, with or without a GRC. A trans woman can be victimised under the law on the grounds of gender reassignment, and when she faces discrimination because she is "perceived as a woman and can compare her treatment with that of a person not perceived to be a woman".
What did the equality commission say?
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the law led to a significant knock-on effect, with public bodies, charities and other public-facing sectors like the hospitality and events industry questioning what the impact of the ruling would be on...
View all episodes
The Supreme Court's decision on how to legally define a woman under equality law is having a wide impact on policies and guidance across the UK.
After the decision, which ruled that the definition of "woman" should be defined by biological sex only, there was confusion among charities and public bodies about how this would impact current policies on gender inclusion.
Ferret Fact Service takes a look at what the ruling does and does not say, and what its impact could be.
How did we get here?
The Supreme Court's ruling came as a result of several legal challenges, which began after the Scottish Parliament passed a bill in 2018 to tackle underrepresentation of women on the boards of public bodies.
The definition of "women" in the law included people who were living as a woman after gender reassignment, or were proposing to undergo the gender reassignment process.
This was challenged by For Women Scotland, a 'gender critical' campaigning organisation which opposes changes to gender recognition law.
This Scottish Government act was found to be unlawful in 2020 as it was legislating on equal opportunities, which is an area of law reserved to the UK Parliament.
A lot of legislation that becomes law in the Scottish and UK parliaments is underpinned by previous regulations. In this case the relevant legislation was the Equality Act, which came into force in 2010 and is enshrined in law across the UK.
After it was deemed unlawful, the Scottish Government released new guidance relating to its public bodies representation law, stating that the definition of a "woman" in the act was the same as it is in the Equality Act, which defines a woman as "a female of any age".
This included, according to the Scottish Government's guidance, anyone with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) which showed their gender as female. A GRC is a document that a transgender person can apply for, which means they are legally recognised as their affirmed gender.
This guidance was again challenged by For Women Scotland in 2022. The group argued that the definition of a woman in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, meaning that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate would not be considered a woman for the purposes of the law. This argument was rejected in Scotland's court of session but For Women Scotland appealed to the Supreme Court, the final and highest appeal court in the UK for civil cases.
The Supreme Court was asked to rule on how the Equality Act definition of a woman should be interpreted, and announced its decision in April this year.
What did the Supreme Court find?
The court upheld the appeal, finding that the definition of "woman", "man" and "sex" in the Equality Act refer to biological sex (this refers to the sex someone is assigned at birth). It stated that including those with a gender recognition certificate would make the Equality Act "incoherent and impracticable to operate".
The Scottish Government's guidance that a trans woman could be included under the definition of "woman" in the Equality Act was found to be incorrect.
In the judgment, Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler stated: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain 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 Equality Act 2010".
The finding, they said, does not remove protection from trans people, with or without a GRC. A trans woman can be victimised under the law on the grounds of gender reassignment, and when she faces discrimination because she is "perceived as a woman and can compare her treatment with that of a person not perceived to be a woman".
What did the equality commission say?
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the law led to a significant knock-on effect, with public bodies, charities and other public-facing sectors like the hospitality and events industry questioning what the impact of the ruling would be on...