What does the Supreme Court ruling mean for gender Equality in the UK?

Supreme Court. Image from supreme court website: Plan your visit - UK Supreme Court

On 16th April 2025, the United Kingdom Supreme Court issued a ruling in which the definitions of ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ were biologically rooted, as outlined in the Equality Act 2010 (BBC, 2025). This ruling came after the Scottish campaign group ‘For Women’ brought a case against the Scottish Government arguing that only people born as a biologically female should be subject to sex-based protections, excluding transgender women from sex based protections. The Scottish Government, however, argued that transgender individuals should also be protected. In their ruling, despite clearly deciding that the definition of a woman is biological, the judges did reaffirm the protections that transgender people have under the Equality Act 2010, with gender reassignment remaining as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. However, the judges failed to account for the complexities of the transgender experience and the intersectional discrimination that transgender people are often subject to.

This ruling will be incredibly detrimental to gender equality within the UK, and will disproportionately impact transgender people who have been issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). A GRC is a certification that a transgender individual will receive, which specifies that they can live in their preferred gender within the eyes of the law (The Rainbow Project, 2025). This will allow transgender individuals to change their birth certificate, to marry and to even die within their preferred gender. Whilst GRC’s and the legal definition of gender is outlined in the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, the Supreme Court ruled that this is not specified in the Equality Act 2010, and that the definition of ‘woman’ is founded on a biological basis. This means that a transgender woman who has received a GRC will be unable to use single-sex spaces which align with her gender, and she will instead be forced to use single-sex spaces that match her assigned gender at birth as she is legally not seen as a woman. Unfortunately, this means that she will be subject to further systemic discrimination, whether that is in her exclusion from gendered public spaces or in her use of single-sex spaces that align with her assigned gender at birth. This exclusion can be seen in the waves of announcements following the ruling, banning transgender women from top tier spots. 

In the ‘Equality Act 2010: 12 Years On’ (Equality Act Review, 2022), we outline the need for intersectionality in protected characteristics. Social characteristics such as race, gender and class can often work in tandem in fuelling the discrimination and systemic disadvantage that someone experiences (Crenshaw, 2005). Whilst gender recognition is protected under the Equality Act 2010, we are yet to see the government and the supreme court engage with gender reassignment in an intersectional way [as with other protected characteristics], recognising that gender and gender reassignment can equally contribute towards the discrimination that transgender individuals are subject to within society. Viewing the law in such a categorical manner leaves gaps in the protections that disadvantaged groups receive, with this ruling in particular neglecting to understand the complexities of the transgender experience and specifically of those with GRC’s. To rectify this, we suggest that the Equality Act 2010 is overhauled, where the legal recognition of gender is outlined alongside the biological definition, so that transgender women with a GRC are legally protected as women. We also suggest that protected characteristics, such as gender and gender reassignment, are viewed intersectionality within the law, providing further protections to those who are systematically disadvantaged.

There is no question that this ruling is a step backwards for gender equality in the UK. While the Supreme Court maintains that Transgender people continue to receive protections under Equality laws, the current discourse around the topic could contribute to amplifying systemic discrimination, as their status as equal, and respected members within UK society has been legally eroded. Furthermore, it is also disappointing to see the back turn of comments made by the Prime Minister, who has now aligned his views with the Supreme Court ruling, instead of standing in support of his transgender constituents. 

We stand in solidarity with you. 

Bibliography:

BBC (2025) Supreme Court backs ‘biological’ definition of woman. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo (Accessed 29th April 2025)

Crenshaw, K. (2005). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color (1994).

Equality Act Review (2022) The Equality Act Review: 12 Years On. Available at: https://www.equalityactreview.co.uk/equalityact12yearson 

Equality and Human Rights Commission (2025) Gender reassignment discrimination. Available at: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/gender-reassignment-discrimination (Accessed 29th April 2025)

The Equality Act 2010. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

The Rainbow Project (2025) Gender Recognition Certificate. Available at: https://www.rainbow-project.org/gender-recognition-certificate/ (Accessed 29th April 2025)