In Landmark Ruling, UK Supreme Court Says Trans Women Not ‘Legally Women’

•Judgement aligns with Trump’s pushback against non-biological females 

•It’s victory for women and girls, says J.K Rowling

Emmanuel Addeh in Abuja

Britain’s Supreme Court ruled yesterday that trans women do not meet the legal definition of female under the country’s ‘Equality Act 2010’, with a unanimous decision that the terms ‘woman and sex’ in the Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex.

The landmark judgment, which said that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, is a blow to campaigners for transgender rights, and could have far-reaching consequences for how the law is applied in Britain to single-sex spaces, equal pay claims and maternity policies.

A New York Times report said that the ruling followed years-long legal battle over whether trans women can be regarded as female under Britain’s 2010 Equality Act, which aims to prevent discrimination and came amid intense, and at times bitter public debate over the intersection of transgender rights and women’s rights.

THISDAY reports that the judgement also aligns with the position of the US President, Donald Trump, whose administration has taken several steps aimed at restricting the rights and recognition of trans individuals, particularly trans women.

One of the major moves was an executive order banning trans women and girls from competing in women’s sports, redefining gender under Title IX as sex assigned at birth. This order threatens to pull federal funding from schools that allow trans girls to play on girls’ teams, a part of a broader effort to reshape federal gender policy based on “biological sex.”  Trump also signed orders limiting access to gender-affirming care—banning such care for anyone under 19 years old—and sought to restrict how federal agencies recognise gender identity. Under Trump’s direction, federal records and programmes now only recognise male and female based on birth certificates, effectively erasing trans identities in many federal settings.

But announcing the decision on Wednesday, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lord Hodge, said: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological women and biological sex.”

Lord Hodge began his remarks by acknowledging the national conversation about transgender rights and protections, and described trans people as a “vulnerable and often harassed minority,” while noting that women had fought for centuries for equal rights.

He added: “It is not the task of this court to make policy on how the interests of these groups should be protected” but “to ascertain the meaning of the legislation which Parliament has enacted.”

He requested that the courtroom remain silent while the judgment was read, but gasps were heard when he announced the decision. Campaigners from For Women Scotland (FWS), the activist group that had brought the legal challenge, started a round of applause and hugged when the hearing ended.

A group of campaigners in Scotland brought a challenge in 2018, arguing that those rights should only safeguard those assigned as women at birth. But the Scottish government said that a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is legally a woman and should therefore be afforded the same legal protections.

Even though the case stems from a dispute over Scottish laws designed to increase the number of women sitting on boards, the outcome on Wednesday will shape the increasingly fractious and polarising debate over transgender rights across the UK, CNN reported.

The UK’s ruling Labour party said the ruling brought “clarity and confidence” while the opposition Conservatives called it a “clear victory for common sense,” urging the government to amend existing guidance.

The five judges ruled in favour of FWS – which proposed that not linking the legal definition of gender to biological sex would have repercussions on designated single-sex services, including changing rooms, hostels and communal accommodation.

“The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” Lord Patrick Hodge told the court in London. “The provisions relating to sex discrimination can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex,” he added.

“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” a summary of the ruling said, which added that transgender women could be excluded from same-sex facilities such as changing rooms if “proportionate.”

If transgender women with a GRC were afforded the same protected characteristic as biological women under the Equality Act, Hodge said, they would possess “greater rights than those who do not,” citing provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity leave.

However, the justice insisted that the court’s interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 “does not remove protection from trans people,” with or without a GRC document. A trans woman could claim discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment, and because “she is perceived to be a woman,” added Hodge.

Britain’s government “has always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex,” a spokesperson said, following the ruling.

“This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs. Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government,” the spokesperson added.

Gender-critical campaigners celebrated the ruling as a major victory. “The court has given the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not paperwork,” said the group, Sex Matters.

Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, who has been vocally gender critical, was among those who welcomed the decision.

“It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK,” Rowling said on X.

Another charity, the LGB Alliance, which made arguments in the case, called it a “watershed for women.”

Former Scottish National Party MP Joanna Cherry, a longtime campaigner on the issue, told PA Media outside court she felt “hugely vindicated” by the ruling, adding that it was now “over to the politicians to make sure that the law is obeyed.”

But trans activists across the globe warned that the fierce public debate over their private lives has chipped away at protection for the marginalised and regularly vilified community in recent years. LGBTQ charity Stonewall said the UK Supreme Court’s decision was “incredibly worrying for the trans community.”