For Women Scotland, a gender critical campaign group has won a landmark victory in the UK Supreme Court. This ruling radically redefines the legal definition of a woman. The court issued this decision on [insert date]. It’s about the narrow interpretation of the Equality Act, which limits the definition of a woman to people born biologically female. As expected, the court’s decision has triggered an explosion of responses. Supporters are hailing it as a landmark win for women’s rights, and critics are denouncing it as a major blow to transgender rights.
The feminist campaign group For Women Scotland has campaigned strongly and effectively against the Scottish government’s expansive definition of gender. They’ve been aided in this effort with generous financial support from Harry Potter author J.K. Additionally, they provided reasoning that the Equality Act’s definition is overly broad. They think it should not apply to people who are anything other than female assigned at birth. In a unanimous decision, the UK Supreme Court found in favor of For Women Scotland. They found against the Scottish government’s position and acknowledged the group’s worries about single-sex spaces.
Lord Hodge gave the judgement. He argued that to interpret sex as certificated sex would create a new definition of both man/woman in the EA, making understanding the protected characteristic of sex incoherent and absurd. It would create heterogeneous groupings. He further added that provisions related to sex discrimination must be interpreted as referring to biological sex: “As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination… can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.”
The ruling has far-reaching implications. This would eliminate transgender women’s rights to sit on public, women-only boards. Opponents of this move are sounding the alarm bells. They argue that it could severely limit transgender women’s access to services and safe spaces that have historically catered to women. Much to the concern of many, it has the potential to trigger further pressure for a UK-wide overhaul of legislation related to gender recognition.
Kishwer Falkner, one of the supporters of For Women Scotland, expressed satisfaction with the judgement: “We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.”
The ruling was highly controversial, drawing widespread condemnation from transgender rights advocates. Maya Forstater, whose high-profile ruling this decision overturns, has been outspoken about what this particular ruling means. She explained, “These protections were established in 2004 after the European Court of Human Rights ruled. Today’s ruling continues to strip the vital human rights of my community to dignity, safety, and the right to be respected for who we are.”
To the thousands of transgender Americans affected by this ruling, this is a great loss in a lengthy battle. Ellie Gomersall, a trans woman affiliated with the Scottish Green party, expressed her dismay: “I’m gutted to see this judgment from the supreme court, which ends 20 years of understanding that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate are able to be… recognised legally as our true genders.”
Gender critical rights campaigners are hailing For Women Scotland’s win. To them it is about safeguarding single-sex spaces in our society, an important step that cannot be overlooked. They claim that such spaces are essential to women’s rights. They think that women should have spaces where men aren’t allowed.