• All_world_news
• Visit Article Link

• BBC
• Wed Apr 16 2025

Women's campaigners celebrate court win - but what will it change?

18 hours ago Share Save Phil Sim BBC Scotland political correspondent Share Save

PA Media Women's campaigners open a bottle of champagne outside the Supreme Court

The UK Supreme Court has unanimously and unambiguously backed the argument that the definition of a woman in the Equality Act should be based on biological sex. Reading out the ruling, Lord Hodge cautioned that it should not be taken as a triumph for one group in society over another. But there were scenes of jubilation for women's campaigners outside the Supreme Court. Tearful hugs were exchanged and a bottle of champagne was cracked open. The fact someone had thought to bring one along underlines that it was potentially on the cards, but For Women Scotland (FWS) still seemed shocked by the scale of their victory. The Scottish government's argument - that sex can be changed via the gender recognition process, and that someone with a gender recognition certificate should have the protections of that sex - were dismissed. So what does it all mean?

The application of the law on the ground, in "real life", was clearly foremost in the minds of the judges. Take the example of single sex spaces and services - part of the motivation for FWS bringing this case. The previous reading of the law was that everything from hospital wards and prison wings to support groups for victims of abuse can exclude everyone but women thanks to exceptions in the Equality Act. The concern from campaigners was that if people could change their sex with a certificate, and then claim protection against discrimination as a woman, that could be more complicated. That's particularly the case on a practical level, given those providing these services aren't actually meant to ask to see a gender recognition certificate. Now, the court is clear that this exemption can continue - the rules underpinning women-only spaces can exclude people with gender recognition certificates, along with everyone else.

Does the Equality Act still protect trans people?

There are still conditions which need to be satisfied - services will have to show that excluding trans people is a limited and proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim. Blanket bans are generally discouraged. There is still a bar to clear to exclude anyone, and the test of proportionality has to be met in each case. The Equality and Human Rights Commission - which oversees the application of the Equality Act - is to issue new guidance to help service providers But FWS are clearly delighted with the underlying principle, and hope it will lead to clearer guidance for those providing services. It's important to note that trans people are still protected by the Equality Act. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment is not affected by this ruling, and Lord Hodge stressed that there are other defences against direct and indirect discrimination and harassment. He was clear that trans people are a "vulnerable and often harassed minority", who "struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity". But the court has held that it would be problematic to effectively divide trans people between two different protected characteristics, depending on whether they have a certificate. Again, judges stressed that this is particularly the case when service providers can't ask to see the certificate. They say the law needs to be "clear and consistent" - and that including those with a GRC in with women would ultimately be "incoherent". The court carefully weighs the letter of the law, but it's worth remembering that ultimately that law is drafted by politicians - and it can be changed at the stroke of a pen.

Will gender reform be relaunched at Holyrood?