Supreme Court Rules on Definition of “Woman”

The For Women Scotland case asked the Supreme Court to rule on a very specific but highly significant legal issue: how the word “woman” should be interpreted under the Equality Act 2010 (EA).

The Scottish Government had issued guidance which suggested that “woman” included transgender women who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). For Women Scotland challenged this guidance, arguing that it was inconsistent with the intention of the Equality Act.

The Supreme Court’s judgment was unanimous, it held that the legal definition of a “woman” under the Equality Act is based on biological sex. This means that when the Act refers to “sex,” “woman,” or “man,” those terms relate to biological categories and not to gender identity or legal gender recognition.

So what reasons did the Court give for this? There were several reasons for this decision.

First, there was the point of the Equality Act, this included areas of concern such as those dealing with pregnancy, maternity, and childbirth. The issue was that the court said that these areas of protection are unique to women on the basis of sex and could not function properly under an alternative interpretation.

As well as that, the Court stressed the importance of clear distinction in discrimination law. Each protected characteristic under the Equality Act, which includes but is not limited to sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment is designed to be distinct and clearly identifiable.

Allowing “woman” to include transgender women with a GRC would blur the line between the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment, potentially granting additional rights to those with a certificate than others without one.

Something very important to remember however is that the Court was careful to underline that this ruling does not remove or reduce protections for transgender individuals.

Transgender people remain fully protected from discrimination under the separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment. The decision was therefore about maintaining the structure and coherence of the Equality Act, rather than stripping away existing rights altogether.

For employers, landlords, and organisations, the ruling provides much-needed clarity on a contentious issue. It confirms that sex-based protections apply to biological women, while protections for transgender individuals sit firmly under gender reassignment. Both groups remain safeguarded, but the two categories must be treated separately.

While this ruling will not resolve the broader social and political debates around sex and gender, it has given the law a clearer framework. Employers and service providers should review their equality and diversity policies to ensure they reflect this distinction, and should continue to treat all individuals with fairness and respect.

Simply put, the Supreme Court’s decision means that, in law, the word “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers only to biological females.

This applies in Scotland just as it does across the rest of the UK, in fact transgender women, even if they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate, are not legally considered “women” for the purposes of the EA.

There are some consequences to this, for example, legal protections that are based specifically on sex, like those relating to pregnancy, maternity, and childbirth, are now expressly reserved to biological women.

Aside from that there is also the addition of policies that lay out ‘women’s only’ spaces. It is common to see laws or policies that regulate “women-only” spaces, for instance changing rooms or in women’s sports categories, those spaces are legally defined as being for biological women.

The Court recognised that this was a sensitive issue. However, it also pointed out that allowing “woman” to include transgender women with a GRC would create inconsistencies in equality law.

Something that was key to the Court was that the inconsistencies would mean that transgender people who had obtained a certificate would enjoy different protections from those who had not, which was never the intention of the Act.

By drawing the line at biological sex, the Court has ensured that the Equality Act’s categories remain distinct and workable.

It is important to emphasise that this ruling does not leave transgender individuals unprotected, indeed they remain covered by the separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Employers and service providers are still under a legal duty to ensure they do not discriminate against transgender people. The difference now is that they must be clear about which rights flow from sex-based protections and which flow from gender reassignment.

The ruling provides legal certainty, but it does not erase the need for sensitivity and balance. Employers, businesses, and institutions must continue to manage equality issues with care, ensuring that everyone’s rights are respected within the legal framework. The decision has clarified the law, but it has also highlighted the importance of clear communication, updated policies, and ongoing training for staff.

We understand that this is an important case that requires explaining from a legal standpoint, particularly for those that employ staff and have active policies that may need updating.

This is due to the fact that ultimately, the Supreme Court’s ruling in For Women Scotland has some implications for equality law and how businesses, employers, and service providers approach issues of sex and gender.

One major implication is that the Equality Act’s categories must remain distinct. “Sex” refers to biological sex, and protections under this category apply to biological women and men. On the other hand, “Gender reassignment,” is a separate protected characteristic that safeguards transgender individuals from discrimination.

The Court has decided to preserve this separation and have decided to avoid overlapping rights since it may have the potential to implicate inconsistencies.

Another point of conversation is the women-only spaces; this means that when legislation or policy states ‘women-only facilities’ these are referring to biological women.

Ultimately, this will require careful handling by organisations that run such spaces, particularly in balancing the need to comply with equality law while also treating transgender individuals with dignity and respect.

For employers, the judgment signals the need to revisit workplace policies, equality and diversity policies, codes of conduct, and staff training should be updated to reflect the clarified definition of “woman.” This ensures that organisations work to ensure that protections for transgender employees under the category of gender reassignment are fully respected – it is important to remember that the ruling does not alter those obligations.

The decision also has symbolic and political implications. It reinforces that the courts are willing to prioritise clarity and consistency in the law, even in areas that are socially and politically charged. The Court acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue but was clear that its role was to interpret the Equality Act, not to rewrite it.

Ultimately, the judgment unblurs the line where there was uncertainty, it ensures that employers, public bodies, and individuals now have a firmer understanding of how the law applies and how they can ensure everybody feels safe and heard legally. Equality and gender law will continue to evolve, but this ruling establishes a clearer foundation for how sex and gender are to be treated under the Equality Act.