For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers

For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers
CourtSupreme Court of the United Kingdom
Argued26–27 November 2024
Decided16 April 2025
Neutral citation[2025] UKSC 16
Case history
Prior history[2023] CSIH 37
[2022] CSIH 4
Appealed fromInner House of the Court of Session
Court membership
Judges sittingReed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Rose, Simler
Case opinions
Decision byHodge, Rose and Simler (with whom Reed and Lloyd-Jones agree: unanimous)

For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 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.[1] 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.[2][a]

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.[3][4] 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.[5][6]

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:[7]

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).[8][9] The decision was in favour of the Scottish Ministers.[10] In February 2022, following an appeal by FWS, the ruling was overturned by the Inner House of the Court of Session.[11][12]

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".[3][13]

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".[14][15]

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.[3][4] Lady Dorrian held that the legal definition of a person's sex was that of their "acquired gender" if they received a GRC.[16]

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).[17][18] 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.[19][20]

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.[b] 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.[17][c]

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.[d] Amnesty International made submissions on human rights principles.[17][e]

Judgment

Wikisource logo
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

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.[21][22][23][24]

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",[f] 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),[g] and it was held to be operative upon the interpretation of "man" and "woman" under the EA 2010.[h] 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.[i] 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.[j]

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.[k] 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".[l]

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.[m] 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".[25]

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".[n][26][27]

As such, it allowed the appeal, invalidating the Scottish Government's guidance.[28]

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".[29][30] 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.[31][32]

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.[30][33] The LGB Alliance regarded the decision as protecting gay and lesbian rights by allowing gay and lesbian associations to exclude trans persons.[34][35]

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.[22]

Advocacy and community groups

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

The decision was widely condemned by numerous LGBTQ organisations and activists, including Stonewall,[32] TransActual,[36] Victoria McCloud,[37][38] and the LGBT Consortium.[39] The decision was also criticised by Human Rights Watch and performing arts union Equity.[40][41]

Over the Easter long weekend of 18–20 April, protests against the ruling were held in towns and cities throughout the UK.[42] Thousands gathered for a rally at London's Parliament Square on 19 April, organised by a group of 24 pro-LGBTQ groups.[43] 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).[44][45]

Birmingham Pride, Brighton Pride, London Pride, Manchester Pride, and Pride Glasgow subsequently announced that they would prohibit political parties from sending official representatives to their events, in "unequivocal solidarity" with the trans community.[46][47]

Politicians and officials

Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer "welcomed" the judgement for bringing "clarity", interpreting the decision as making "absolutely clear" that "a woman is an adult female".[48][49] Labour party leaders, including Minister for Women and Equalities Bridget Phillipson, interpreted the decision as providing support for the rule that trans people should not be allowed to use single-sex spaces for their identified gender, including toilets, hospitals, shelters, and rape crisis centers as examples.[50][51][52] At the same time, LGBT+ Labour stated they were "deeply disappointed" by the judgement and its potential harmful effects on trans persons and transphobia.[53]

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch considered it a "victory" for women who had been targeted for "stating the obvious" and that "the era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end."[21][54]

In Scotland, Maggie Chapman, Scottish Greens Member of the Scottish Parliament and deputy convenor of the parliamentary Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, condemned the judgement, stating that the Supreme Court had engaged in "bigotry, prejudice and hatred". Her comments were condemned by Akua Reindorf KC, a Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission;[55] the Faculty of Advocates, which described them as failing to "respect the rule of law"; and a number of senior lawyers, including King's Counsel.[56] Joanna Cherry called for Chapman to resign,[55] whilst a motion brought by Conservative MSP Tess White to have Chapman removed from her Committee position over the issue was unsuccessful.[57]

The Welsh Government released a statement accepting the decision of the Supreme Court, noting that the judgement did not remove protection from trans people, and reaffirming an ongoing commitment to equality and inclusion.[58]

Following the ruling, a spokesperson for the Republic of Ireland's Equality Minister, Norma Foley, stated that the ruling would not impact trans people in Ireland.[59]

Celebrities

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".[60] Many other celebrities, however, publicly displayed the slogan "Protect the Dolls" in the immediate aftermath of the decision, the slogan being worn on clothing by a wide array of actors, models, musicians, and artists in support of the rights of trans women.[61][62][63][64]

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.[65]

International

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."[66]

Australia's sex discrimination commissioner Anna Cody condemned the ruling.[67]

Subsequent EHRC guidance

Following the decision, Kishwer Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), stated that its upcoming code of practice will recognise the ruling by excluding trans women from single-sex spaces, including women's sports and changing spaces, and that the NHS would "have to change" its policy of treating transgender patients in accordance with their declared gender.[68][69][70][71]

Revised guidance was laid before Parliament on 21 May 2026, with 40 days for legislators to raise concerns before becoming statute.[72] The guidance covered facilities and services open to the public, but not staff facilities, with guidance relating to that to be published at a later date.[73] This guidance indicated single-sex spaces should be used on the basis of biological sex, and that a third or gender-neutral space could be offered to transgender people. In the Equality Impact Assessment, the Office of Equality and Opportunity says that there are concerns of "double exclusion", where it is possible that trans people are barred from both the space aligned with their gender and the space aligned with their birth sex, effectively leaving them with no service at all. Their assessment is the likely impact on trans people is negative. There are also concerns of "policing of gender", which could lead to increased harassment for trans people and cisgender people who do not conform to traditional gender stereotypes.[74]

Litigation

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.[75][76] The case was heard at the High Court in November 2025, with advocacy group Sex Matters allowed to present an intervention. In February 2026, the court dismissed the challenge and rejected all grounds argued.[77]

Impact

On 29 June 2025, Keir Starmer stated that he "welcomed the ruling and everything else flows from that", 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".[78] British Transport Police confirmed that the strip-search policy would be so that trans women in custody who required to be strip searched would have this done by male officers.[79][80] Both the House of Commons and Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body announced that unisex toilet facilities in Westminster and Holyrood would only be allowed to persons of the corresponding biological sex, with trans people also being able to use gender-neutral and accessible toilets.[81][82] In December 2025, the Labour Party barred trans women from taking part in the formal proceedings of their women's conference in 2026.[83][84]

Following the ruling and subsequent EHRC guidance, a number of sports clubs and bodies announced bans on transgender women playing in women's sports, including the Scottish Football Association, which banned transgender women from participating in women's football from the next season;[85][86] The Football Association in England;[87] England Netball;[88] and the England and Wales Cricket Board.[89] The Women's Institute and Girlguiding also announced that it could no longer allow trans women and girls to be members as a result of legal advice they received.[90]

Criticism

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.[91] 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".[91][92][93]

Ahead of the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia on 17 May, 23 Pride organisations 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 criticised "the influence of the anti-LGBTQIA+ lobby in both the UK and Scottish Governments".[94]

In June, an estimated 900 trans people and their supporters (including Kate Nash) demonstrated at Parliament in June, seeking to meet with MPs to advocate against anti-trans positions. According to Diva, the protest surpassed the number of demonstrators who protested against section 28 in the 1980s.[95][96][97]

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 criticising the EHRC and arguing they violated the European Convention on Human Rights.[38][98] In July, TransLuscent requested that 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.[99]

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, noting similarities of the UK's policy to the 9th Pattern of Genocide. The institute believe that "the practical repercussions for trans and intersex individuals are clear and serious" and that: "If the guidance does become law, it would make transition impossible in the UK. Life as a transitioned person would become unbearable".[100][101]

Subsequent judicial developments

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 judgement "has left me two sexes at once, which is a nonsense".[38]

A county court applied the For Women Scotland (FWS) decision to a discrimination case by a trans woman against the English Blackball Pool Federation in ruling against the claimant.[102][103][104]

Costs

On 27 May 2025, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Scottish Government would be required to pay For Women Scotland's costs and expenses.[105] In February 2026, For Women Scotland received £392,500 as full and final settlement.[106]

For Women Scotland 3

In 2026, For Women Scotland won a separate victory over The Scottish Ministers, in the Court of Session, a case referred to as For Women Scotland 3 (the Court of Session case in For Women Scotland being FWS 1, and the Supreme Court judgment being FWS 2). This found that Scottish prison policy, which allowed transgender prisoners to be in the prison of their preferred gender, was unlawful, and that sex segregation in prisons must only be on the basis of biological sex, building on the judgment in FWS 2.[107][108]

The leading decision effects potentially far reaching changes to English law, including in employment law,[109] family law,[110] statutory interpretation,[111] and human rights law.[112] Although the judgment stated that it was solely concerned with the definitions under the Equality Act 2010, its interpretation of the 'carve-out' section 9(3) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was a general one and not confined to the EA 2010.[110] The decision has been noted for using trans-exclusionary language, labelling trans women as "men" and trans men as "women".[113][114]

Labour peer and former deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman said that the ruling of the Supreme Court gave effect to her intention when drafting the Equality Act.[115] At the same time, Melanie Field, a former civil servant who was the lead official of the EA 2010, said that it was the "clear premise" of the Act that transgender women with GRCs would be recognised as women, warning against the "unintended consequences" of the decision.[116][117]

Shreya Atrey, an associate professor in international human rights law at Oxford, has suggested that the Supreme Court justices failed to understand fully the context and purpose of the EA 2010, as theories of equality law are rooted in concepts of "autonomy, political exclusion, denial of dignity, and a history of disadvantage", and not in biological or social grounds. She finds that the Supreme Court "has undone the meaning of grounds which had developed in the UK since the first equality legislation came into force", so the For Women Scotland case "has fundamentally reshaped equality law in the UK."[118]

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 of potential repercussions by the public, media and state.[119]

The British Medical Association's Resident Doctors Committee passed a motion at their annual conference which condemned the Supreme Court's interpretation of sex as "reductive, trans- and intersex-exclusionary and biologically nonsensical" as well as "scientifically illiterate" and made without consulting relevant stakeholders.[120][121][122] One of the intervenors in the case, Sex Matters, criticised the motion.[122][123] The ruling also did not mention intersex people.[124]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Duffy, Sandra (2025). "Moral panics and legal projects: echoes of Section 28 in United Kingdom transgender discourse and law reform". Gender and Justice. 1 (1): 78–99. doi:10.1332/30333660Y2024D000000008. hdl:1983/f0e7ee80-71c4-416a-aa83-b54e9875e64f. Anti-trans groups such as the LGB Alliance and For Women Scotland were established during the period of the Bill's genesis, and have vehemently opposed self-identification as dangerous to the rights of cisgender women and girls.
  2. ↑ "The Supreme Court ruling gives clarity — but now comes the difficult part". BBC. 19 April 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  3. 1 2 3 "Campaigners lose definition of 'woman' appeal bid". BBC News. 1 November 2023. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  4. 1 2 "Appeal over Court of Session ruling on definition of 'woman'". BBC News. 3 October 2023. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  5. ↑ "UK's highest court set to rule on definition of a woman". The Independent. 26 November 2024. Archived from the original on 28 November 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  6. ↑ Brooks, Libby (16 April 2025). "How UK court definition of 'woman' could affect sex-based rights". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 April 2025.
  7. ↑ "Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018". legislation.gov.uk. 10 March 2018. Archived from the original on 26 August 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  8. ↑ "Bid to improve trans rights breaches law, court hears". BBC News. 7 January 2021. Retrieved 2 June 2026.
  9. ↑ "Judge retires to 'find answers' in trans law case". BBC News. 8 January 2021. Retrieved 2 June 2026.
  10. ↑ For Women Scotland Ltd v The Lord Advocate and The Scottish Ministers [2021] CSOH 31
  11. ↑ "Campaigners in court win over 'woman' definition". BBC News. 18 February 2022. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  12. ↑ For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2022] CSIH 4
  13. ↑ "Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018: statutory guidance". www.gov.scot. Archived from the original on 24 May 2022. Retrieved 2 June 2026.
  14. ↑ "Government wins legal case over definition of woman". BBC News. 13 December 2022. Archived from the original on 17 December 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  15. ↑ For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2022] CSOH 90
  16. ↑ For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2023] CSIH 37
  17. 1 2 3 "Defining 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 — Inside the For Women Scotland v the Scottish Ministers appeal". Law Society of Scotland. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
  18. ↑ "Scottish Lesbians to intervene in For Women Scotland's Supreme Court appeal". Scottish Legal News. 11 October 2024. Retrieved 27 April 2025.
  19. ↑ Brooks, Libby (28 March 2024). "Transgender judge seeks leave to intervene in UK court case over legal definition of 'woman'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 April 2025.
  20. ↑ Riedel, Samantha (27 November 2024). "U.K. Supreme Court Begins Case Deciding Whether Trans Women Can Be Legally Considered "Female"". Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  21. 1 2 "Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman". BBC News. 15 April 2025. Archived from the original on 16 April 2025. Retrieved 16 April 2025.
  22. 1 2 "U.K. Top Court Says Trans Women Are Not Legally Women Under Equality Act". New York Times. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  23. ↑ "The supreme court didn't rule on the definition of 'a woman' – this is what its judgment does mean". The Guardian. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  24. ↑ Haq, Sana Noor (16 April 2025). "UK Supreme Court says legal definition of 'woman' excludes trans women, in landmark ruling". CNN. Archived from the original on 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  25. ↑ Linklater, Magnus. "Lord Hodge: Supreme Court had a duty to rule on gender". www.thetimes.com. Retrieved 2 June 2026.
  26. ↑ Bland, Archie (17 April 2025). "What a landmark supreme court ruling on biological sex does – and doesn't – mean". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  27. ↑ "Supreme Court ruling just the latest curb on trans rights worldwide". The Independent. 17 April 2025. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  28. ↑ Scott, Geraldine; Manning, Sanchez; Sanderson, Daniel (16 April 2025). "Organisations 'must revisit policies' after Supreme Court trans ruling". www.thetimes.com. Retrieved 16 April 2025.
  29. ↑ "What does Supreme Court definition of a woman ruling mean?". BBC News. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 16 April 2025.
  30. 1 2 McArdle, Tom (16 April 2025). "For Women Scotland crack open champagne as they celebrate victory". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 22 April 2025.
  31. ↑ Brocklehurst, Steven. "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex". BBC News. Retrieved 2 June 2026.
  32. 1 2 Perry, Sophie (16 April 2025). "'We'll get through this together': Reactions to Supreme Court's trans ruling". PinkNews. Retrieved 16 April 2025.
  33. ↑ Lewis, Sophie (23 April 2025). "The UK's Anti-Trans Ruling Is a Defeat for All Women". ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  34. ↑ Fox, Aine (16 April 2025). "Campaigners say Supreme Court ruling on biological sex 'a watershed for women'". The Standard. Retrieved 8 September 2025.
  35. ↑ Urwin, Rosamund; Wheeler, Caroline (26 April 2025). "Supreme Court ruling sounded simple. Then the resistance started". The Sunday Times. Retrieved 28 April 2025.
  36. ↑ "Transgender women in Britain fear ruling could place toilets, sports and hospitals off limits". Washington Post. 17 April 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2025.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
  37. ↑ "Trans former judge to challenge Supreme Court's gender ruling". BBC News. 29 April 2025. Retrieved 29 April 2025.
  38. 1 2 3 Hansford, Amelia (30 June 2025). "Retired judge calls for international review into UK's trans rights rollback". Pink News. Retrieved 2 July 2025.
  39. ↑ Brooks, Libby (2 May 2025). "LGBTQ+ charities warn of 'genuine crisis' for trans people after UK ruling". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
  40. ↑ Billson, Chantelle (9 May 2025). "UK Supreme Court trans ruling condemned by Human Rights Watch: 'Severely regressive'". Retrieved 10 May 2025.
  41. ↑ "Thousands demonstrate for trans rights". LRD. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  42. ↑ Billson, Chantelle (18 April 2025). "Protests against trans Supreme Court ruling to be held across UK this weekend". PinkNews. Retrieved 20 April 2025.
  43. ↑ Tapper, James (19 April 2025). "'One hell of a turnout': trans activists rally in London against gender ruling". The Observer. Retrieved 20 April 2025.
  44. ↑ Grew, Tony (20 April 2025). "Damage to statues investigated after trans protest". BBC News. Archived from the original on 20 April 2025. Retrieved 20 April 2025.
  45. ↑ Tom McArdle; Dominic Penna; Daniel Martin; Ruth Hallows (20 April 2025). "Nelson Mandela statue among seven vandalised during trans protest". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 20 April 2025.
  46. ↑ "Glasgow Pride bans political parties over gender ruling inaction". BBC News. 14 May 2025. Retrieved 16 May 2025.
  47. ↑ Parry, Josh (12 May 2025). "UK Pride groups suspend involvement of political parties". BBC. Retrieved 16 May 2025.
  48. ↑ Aubrey Allegretti; Geraldine Scott (22 April 2025). "Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women". The Times. Retrieved 22 April 2025.
  49. ↑ McKiernan & Zeffman (22 April 2025). "Starmer does not believe trans women are women, No 10 says". bbc.co.uk. BBC. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  50. ↑ "Campaigners warn of Supreme Court ruling impact on trans people". BBC News. 17 April 2025. Archived from the original on 17 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  51. ↑ "Westminster's tortuous battle with the gender question". www.bbc.com. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  52. ↑ "Trans women should use male toilets, equalities minister says". The Independent. 22 April 2025. Retrieved 22 April 2025.
  53. ↑ "LGBT+ Labour's Statement following the Supreme Court Judgment on FWS v The Scottish Ministers". LGBT+ Labour. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  54. ↑ "Labour Minister Says Tories Should Apologise For Past Pro-Trans Women Stance". Yahoo News. 17 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
  55. 1 2 Learmonth, Andrew (22 April 2025). "Maggie Chapman accuses Supreme Court of 'bigotry'". The Herald. Retrieved 22 April 2025.
  56. ↑ "Lawyers criticise MSP's attack on gender ruling". BBC News. 22 April 2025. Retrieved 23 April 2025.
  57. ↑ "Maggie Chapman survives attempt to remove her from equalities committee". Holyrood Website. 29 April 2025. Retrieved 29 April 2025.
  58. ↑ "Written Statement: Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act 2010 (29 April 2025) | GOV.WALES". www.gov.wales. 29 April 2025. Retrieved 29 April 2025.
  59. ↑ "Irish law will protect transgender people from discrimination following landmark court ruling in UK". Irish Independent. 20 April 2025. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  60. ↑ "'Harry Potter' author JK Rowling faces backlash to anti-trans comments". USA Today. 18 April 2025. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  61. ↑ Chang, Mahalia (25 April 2025). "The Story Behind Pedro Pascal's 'Protect the Dolls' Shirt". GQ. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  62. ↑ "Conner Ives Wants You to Actually Protect the Dolls". ELLE. 24 April 2025. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  63. ↑ "Pedro Pascal's 'Protect The Dolls' T-Shirt Is Fashion Activism At Its Finest". Grazia. 23 April 2025. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  64. ↑ Cochrane, Lauren (25 April 2025). "'Protect the Dolls' T-shirt becomes a fashion symbol for trans rights". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 8 May 2025.
  65. ↑ "Michaela Coel among writers expressing solidarity with the trans community". The Pink News. 24 April 2025. Retrieved 24 April 2025.
  66. ↑ Stavrou, Athena (16 May 2025). "UK plummets down rankings for LGBT+ rights in Europe following Supreme Court ruling". The Independent.
  67. ↑ "'Not the laws of Australia': Sex discrimination chief reacts to UK ruling on definition of a woman". SBS News. 17 April 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  68. ↑ Carrell, Severin; Davies, Caroline (17 April 2025). "Trans activists accuse UK equalities chief of 'overreach' for suggesting bans". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 20 April 2025.
  69. ↑ "Public bodies face 'enforcement' of biological sex policies, watchdog warns". The National. 17 April 2025. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  70. ↑ Billson, Chantelle (17 April 2025). "NHS warned it will be 'pursued' if it doesn't change gender policies". PinkNews. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  71. ↑ "What Supreme Court's gender ruling means for workplaces, hospitals and sports". Yahoo News. 17 April 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2025.
  72. ↑ "Organisations receive clear, accessible guidance on how to implement equality law in updated draft Code of Practice". GOV.UK. 21 May 2026. Retrieved 21 May 2026.
  73. ↑ Holt, Alison; Nick Triggle (21 May 2026). "Toilets and changing rooms must be used on basis of biological sex, guidance confirms". BBC News. Retrieved 21 May 2026.
  74. ↑ "Equality impact assessment". GOV.UK. Retrieved 24 May 2026.
  75. ↑ "Campaigners take step in legal action over toilet guidance after gender ruling". The Independent. 16 May 2025. Retrieved 16 May 2025.
  76. ↑ Elliards, Xander (16 May 2025). "UK minister and watchdog sued over single-sex toilet guidance". The National.
  77. ↑ "R (Good Law Project Ltd and others) v Equality and Human Rights Commission [2026] EWHC 279 (Admin)" (PDF). Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. 13 February 2026. Retrieved 20 August 2026.
  78. ↑ Scott, Geraldine (29 June 2025). "Keir Starmer says trans ruling must be enacted 'as soon as possible'". The Times. Retrieved 30 June 2025.
  79. ↑ "Trans women to be strip searched by male transport police after court ruling". Sky News. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  80. ↑ Al Jazeera Staff. "Trans women aren't legally women: What the UK Supreme Court ruling means". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 18 April 2025.
  81. ↑ Wheeler, Caroline; Urwin, Rosamund (14 June 2025). "House of Commons says sorry after trans barrister uses ladies' loo". The Times. Retrieved 15 June 2025.
  82. ↑ "Trans women banned from female toilets in Holyrood". BBC News. 9 May 2025. Retrieved 9 May 2025.
  83. ↑ "Labour ban trans women from annual women's conference". The National. 6 December 2025. Retrieved 7 December 2025.
  84. ↑ "Trans women will not be allowed to attend main Labour Women's Conference events". BBC. 6 December 2025. Retrieved 7 December 2025.
  85. ↑ MacInnes, Paul (29 April 2025). "SFA to ban transgender women from playing in women's football". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 May 2025.
  86. ↑ Ferguson, Alasdair (3 May 2025). "Scottish transgender player hits out at SFA rules change". The National. Retrieved 4 May 2025.
  87. ↑ Sean Kearns; Dan Roan (1 May 2025). "FA bars transgender women from women's football". BBC News. Retrieved 4 May 2025.
  88. ↑ Ingle, Sean (1 May 2025). "FA to ban transgender women from playing women's football in England". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 May 2025.
  89. ↑ "Transgender women banned from playing women's cricket in England and Wales". The Guardian. 2 May 2025. Retrieved 4 May 2025.
  90. ↑ Topping, Alexandra (3 December 2025). "Women's Institute will no longer accept trans women as members from April". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 December 2025.
  91. 1 2 Cooke, Millie (28 April 2025). "Equalities watchdog under pressure to scrap new guidance on single sex spaces". The Independent. Retrieved 28 April 2025.
  92. ↑ Cooke, Millie (27 April 2025). "Government will ban trans employees from toilets that reflect their gender". The Independent. Retrieved 28 April 2025.
  93. ↑ Morton, Becky (27 April 2025). "Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn". BBC News Online. Retrieved 28 April 2025.
  94. ↑ Brown, Fionna (16 May 2025). "'Anti-LGBT+ lobby at work in UK and Scottish Governments', Scottish Pride groups warn". The National. Retrieved 16 May 2025.
  95. ↑ EDITOR (26 June 2025). "History was made at the mass lobby for trans rights". diva-magazine.com. Retrieved 26 June 2025.
  96. ↑ "Trans women banned from using women's toilets in parliament". The Independent. 24 June 2025. Retrieved 26 June 2025.
  97. ↑ "Trans campaigners descend on UK parliament to protest 'bathroom ban'". France 24. 25 June 2025. Retrieved 26 June 2025.
  98. ↑ Walker, Peter (28 June 2025). "Transgender campaigners call for European rights body to report on UK". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2 July 2025.
  99. ↑ Cooke, Millie (2 July 2025). "Trans campaign group demands investigation into EHRC following gender ruling". The Independent. Retrieved 2 July 2025.
  100. ↑ "Red Flag Alert on Anti-Trans and Intersex Rights in the UK". Lemkin Institute. Retrieved 1 July 2025.
  101. ↑ Hansford, Amelia (2 July 2025). "Genocide prevention group issues 'red flag' over UK's treatment of trans people". PinkNews | Latest lesbian, gay, bi and trans news | LGBTQ+ news. Retrieved 2 July 2025.
  102. ↑ "Canterbury County Court: Claim no. K01CT207 Judgement" (PDF). www.outertemple.com. 1 August 2025. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 August 2025. Retrieved 21 April 2026.
  103. ↑ "Transgender pool player Harriet Haynes loses discrimination case".
  104. ↑ Lochab, Ravneet (1 August 2025). "Sarah Crowther KC and Sapan Maini-Thompson act for the English Blackball Pool Federation in discrimination claim". Outer Temple Chambers. Retrieved 17 August 2025.
  105. ↑ Learmonth, Andrew (27 May 2025). "Scottish Government ordered to pay For Women Scotland costs". The Herald. Retrieved 28 May 2025.
  106. ↑ Amery, Rachel (10 February 2026). "For Women Scotland: SNP government settles £392,500 legal bill". The Scotsman. Retrieved 11 February 2026.
  107. ↑ "Judge rules Scottish guidance for housing trans prisoners is unlawful". BBC News. 19 June 2026. Retrieved 20 June 2026.
  108. ↑ https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/pnbpzgex/2026csoh59-petition-of-for-women-scotland-for-judicial-review.pdf
  109. ↑ Gascoigne, Mollie (September 2025). "Sex, Statutory Interpretation and the Supreme Court: A Comment on For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers for Employment Law and Practice". Industrial Law Journal. 4 (3): 693–709.
  110. 1 2 Brown, A; Dunne, P. R. (2025). "The Family Law Implications and Consequences of For Women Scotland" (PDF). Family Law. London: LexisNexis: 1191.
  111. ↑ "Robert Mullins: For Women Scotland: Fastening the "Biological" Straitjacket". UK Constitutional Law Association. 22 May 2025. Retrieved 2 June 2026.
  112. ↑ "Crash Wigley: For Women Scotland: A Case of Significant Silences". UK Constitutional Law Association. 6 May 2025. Retrieved 2 June 2026.
  113. ↑ Norrie, Kenneth (1 October 2025). "Case comment: For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16". Juridical Review. 2025 (3): 182–193. ISSN 0022-6785.
  114. ↑ Maine, Alexander (2025). "For Women Scotland: an interpretation of equality rooted in biology". www.tandfonline.com. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. doi:10.1080/09649069.2025.2530887. Retrieved 2 June 2026.
  115. ↑ Dixon, Hayley (16 April 2025). "Trans ruling seismic for everything from women's lavatories to elite sport". The Telegraph. Retrieved 8 September 2025.
  116. ↑ Carrell, Severin; Brooks, Libby (18 April 2025). "Court ruling on 'woman' at odds with UK Equality Act aim, says ex-civil servant". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 19 April 2025.
  117. ↑ "Supreme Court ruling on definition of a woman 'at odds' with goals of UK Equality Act, ex-civil servant tells LBC". LBC. Retrieved 19 April 2025.
  118. ↑ Atrey, Shreya (2026). "Grounds in Equality Law: Before and After For Women Scotland". The Modern Law Review. 89 (3): 379–405. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.70029. ISSN 0026-7961.
  119. ↑ Maugham, Jolyon (16 April 2025). "We left it to the Supreme Court to decide 'what a woman is' – they chose wrong". The Independent. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  120. ↑ Billson, Chantelle (28 April 2025). "BMA resident doctors condemn Supreme Court's 'scientifically illiterate' trans ruling". PinkNews. Retrieved 28 April 2025.
  121. ↑ Searles, Michael (28 April 2025). "Doctors brand Supreme Court trans ruling 'scientifically illiterate'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 28 April 2025.
  122. 1 2 Feinmann, Jane (6 May 2025). "BMA Resident Doctors Committee is criticised after condemning UK ruling on biological sex". BMJ. 389: r900. doi:10.1136/bmj.r900. ISSN 1756-1833. PMID 40328479.
  123. ↑ Hayward, Eleanor (28 April 2025). "Doctors call Supreme Court gender ruling 'scientifically illiterate'". www.thetimes.com. Retrieved 7 May 2025.
  124. ↑ "How did the UK Supreme Court define a woman and what happens now?". AP News. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 24 June 2025.

Paragraph citations

  1. ↑ At [63].
  2. ↑ At [32].
  3. ↑ At [34].
  4. ↑ At [33].
  5. ↑ At [34].
  6. ↑ At [94].
  7. ↑ At [156].
  8. ↑ At [265].
  9. ↑ At [108].
  10. ↑ At [155].
  11. ↑ At [265].
  12. ↑ At [171].
  13. ↑ At [248]-[263]
  14. ↑ At [166]-[247]
This page is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.