In a significant judgment that may shape future debates on gender and law in the UK, the Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2025, that trans women — even those with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) — do not fall within the definition of "woman" under the Equality Act 2010 for the purpose of sex discrimination claims.
The decision was issued in the case For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers, which challenged the Scottish Government’s revised statutory guidance under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The Scottish guidance had interpreted the term “woman” to include trans women with GRCs, allowing them to be counted toward gender representation targets on public boards.
However, the UK Supreme Court clarified that such an interpretation conflicts with the Equality Act 2010.
“A person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of 'woman' for the purposes of sex discrimination in section 11 of the EA 2010,” the Court stated, adding that “the definition of 'woman' in section 2 of the 2018 Act… is limited to biological women and does not include trans women with a GRC.”
Read Also:- Citizens for Justice and Peace Tells Supreme Court: Anti-Conversion Laws Are Being Weaponised by States
The five-judge bench included Lord Reed (President), Lord Hodge (Deputy President), Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Rose, and Lady Simler. The judgment emphasized that the term “sex” under the Equality Act refers exclusively to biological sex.
This ruling marks the culmination of a legal challenge initiated by For Women Scotland Ltd, a feminist advocacy group. They argued that the inclusion of trans women with GRCs unlawfully extended the definition of “woman,” thereby breaching the reserved legislative boundaries set under the Scotland Act 1998.
The Court agreed.
“Because it is so limited, the 2018 Act does not stray beyond the exception permitted in section L2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act into reserved matters,” the Court observed. “Therefore… the 2018 Act is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.”
The case centered on whether the Scottish Parliament exceeded its legislative competence by including trans women in its definition of “woman” under the 2018 Act, thereby affecting “equal opportunities” — a matter reserved to Westminster.
Read Also:- SCBA Urges Supreme Court to Live Stream Hearing on Waqf Amendment Act Petitions
The Scottish Government had relied on section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which states that once a full GRC is issued, the person’s acquired gender becomes their legal gender “for all purposes.” On that basis, it was argued that a trans woman with a GRC is legally female and therefore should be included under the Equality Act’s provisions regarding women.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed this reasoning, finding that section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 is subject to limitations and does not override the biological interpretation of sex in the Equality Act.
“The EA 2010 treats sex as a biological concept,” the Court clarified. “It recognizes trans people under a separate protected characteristic — gender reassignment — and not under sex.”
The Court acknowledged the vulnerability of the trans community and affirmed their rights under the “gender reassignment” category in the Equality Act. But it also stressed that the word “woman” under sex-based discrimination protections cannot be legally extended to include trans women, even those with GRCs.
“The issue here is only whether the appointment of a trans woman who has a GRC counts as the appointment of a woman… In our judgment it does not,” the judgment stated.
The ruling does not prohibit trans people from serving on public boards, nor does it diminish their importance in public life. Rather, it narrowly interprets how representation targets set for “women” in public boards should be legally assessed.
“Nothing in this judgment is intended to discourage the appointment of trans people to public boards or to minimise the importance of addressing their under-representation on such boards,” the Court emphasized.
The ruling addressed statutory interpretation, the purpose of the Equality Act, and its relationship with other laws, including the Gender Recognition Act and the Scotland Act.
Case Title: For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers
