In a landmark ruling that has sparked widespread discussion, the UK Supreme Court has confirmed that the word “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) refers to biological sex, not gender identity.
This means that for legal purposes under this Act, a “woman” is someone who was born female — even if a trans woman holds a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), she is not included in this definition.
Background: For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers
This decision came from the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, which challenged Scottish Government guidance designed to increase women’s representation on public boards. The guidance stated that trans women with a GRC should be counted as women. The group For Women Scotland argued that this contradicted the law, and the Supreme Court agreed.
What does this decision mean?
1. Sex means biology, not identity
The Supreme Court said that terms like “man”, “woman”, and “sex” in the Equality Act are based on biological sex. This is important because many legal protections and services rely on this definition — such as maternity rights, access to single-sex spaces, or protections based on sexual orientation.
2. No special rights for GRC holders
Under Scottish guidance, trans people with a Gender Recognition Certificate would have had extra legal rights that others didn’t if sex had referred to identity, rather than biology. The Court ruled this was unfair — and pointed out that service providers can’t legally ask someone if they have a GRC, making the system unworkable.
3. Protection of same-sex spaces
The ruling helps preserve single-sex services like women’s shelters, hospital wards, or lesbian-only spaces. A clear biological definition ensures these spaces can exist without legal confusion.
4. Trans people are still legally protected
Although controversial, this ruling doesn’t remove protections for trans individuals. The Equality Act gives trans people rights under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. They’re also protected from:
- Discrimination based on perception or association
- Harassment
- Indirect discrimination (e.g. policies that unfairly disadvantage trans people)
In short, the ruling affects how sex-based services are managed — but it does not strip away rights in workplaces, schools, or most everyday interactions.
Why is this decision important?
The case focused on legal clarity.
The Supreme Court ruled that allowing gender identity to change the meaning of “sex” would make the law inconsistent and difficult to apply. For example, it could impact how we define pregnancy protections, sexual orientation rights, and who can access women-only services.
The Court also pointed to a little-known section of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which allows exceptions where recognising someone’s acquired gender would make another law (like the Equality Act) unworkable.
Debates around sex and gender will likely continue, but this decision highlights how complex and sensitive the conversation around sex and gender can be — and why legal definitions matter when rights and protections are on the line.
Further reading
- For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) – UK Supreme Court
- The Equality Act 2010
- Gender Recognition Act 2004
If you enjoyed this blog then perhaps you’d like to sign up to our monthly newsletter. We’ll keep you updated on what’s new in employment law.
The team at Hunter Law is here for you. We can handle your HR issues, finesse your policies, and keep you up-to-date on evolving legislation. Please get in touch with our legal team, we’d love to help.
