Supreme Court ruling could have huge impact on trans people - what it means

A landmark Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman is set to have huge implications across the UK.

In a long-anticipated decision five senior judges said the terms "women" and "sex" refer to biological woman and biological sex. The controversial ruling - branded a "victory for common sense" by supporters and "erasure" of transgender people by critics - now piles pressure on the Government to rewrite equality laws.

It raises questions over access to single-sex spaces and protections based on sex. The ruling follows a lengthy legal battle over the definition of a woman in Scottish legislation - but its impact will be felt across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

A legal challenge was brought forward by campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) over Holyrood laws requiring 50% female representation on public boards. This created thorny questions about whether transgender women should qualify.

In response the Government said the ruling provided clarity in areas including , refuges, and sports club. The ruling raises the likelihood of further legislation around access to areas including changing rooms. But judges stressed that they were not tearing up discrimination protections for transgender people.

Here we look at the ruling and what its impact could be.

What was in dispute?

The legal battle centred on whether someone with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the UK's 2010 Equality Act.

FWS argued that not tying the definition of sex to its "ordinary meaning" would have far-reaching consequences for sex-based rights, as well as "everyday single-sex services" like toilets and hospital wards.

But the Scottish Government disagreed - telling the Supreme Court in November that a person with a GRC is "recognised in law" as having changed sex. It said that a person's "certificated sex" should be what is taken into account.

Since the Gender Recognition Act was passed in 2004, the court heard, 8,464 people in the UK had obtained a GRC. This requires a person to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, to live in their changed gender for at least two years and and intend to live in that gender for the rest of their life.

So what did the judges say?

Justices at the UK's highest court unanimously ruled in FWS's favour. They said that a gender recognition certificate (GRC) does not change a trans person's legal sex under the Equality Act.

Lord Hodge, sitting with Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones alongside Ladies Rose and Simler, said the "central question" is how the words "woman" and "sex" are defined in the 2010 legislation. He continued: "The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex."

In an 88-page judgment, the justices said that while the word "biological" does not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, "the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman".

The justices said that transgender people are still protected from discrimination, but that "gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and inequality".

What does this actually mean though?

Today's controversial ruling gives legal clarity over whether sex-based protections in the Equality Act 2010 apply to transgender people.

For example, there has been controversy over the allocation of places on public boards reserved for women, and the right to use spaces and services intended for women.

The decision will create huge pressure on the UK Government to amend the Act to exclude transgender women from women-only spaces. And the Scottish Government is expected to be forced to reverse its policies on public boards.

The judges said that in their view, the biological sex ruling "does not cause disadvantage to trans people, with or without a GRC".

What has the Government said?

The Government says the ruling brings "clarity and confidence" for women, and said single-sex spaces are protected in law.

Following the Supreme Court announcement a Government spokesman said: "We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.

"This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as , refuges, and sports clubs. Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government."

What do critics say?

The decision has split opinion, and it is unlikely that the issue will quieten down any time soon.

Thomas Willett, co-founder of campaign group Equality Amplified, responded: "Today’s Supreme Court ruling on the For Women case is a disgraceful attack on trans rights. In a process that excluded trans voices and centred anti-trans groups, this is not justice — it’s erasure. We will never stop fighting for our trans community."

Left-wing movement Momentum said: "Today's Supreme Court ruling will have a lasting impact on an already marginalised community. From MPs to trade unions, most of the labour movement stands united in support of trans rights. Solidarity with the trans community."

What do supporters say?

Campaign group Sex Matters, which had made arguments in the case, said the court had given "the right answer".

Maya Forstater, the group's chief executive, said: "We are delighted that the Supreme Court has accepted the arguments of For Women Scotland and rejected the position of the Scottish Government. The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex - male and female - refers to reality, not to paperwork."

READ MORE: