UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of woman based on biological sex
Ella Morgan said she was ‘speechless’ when she saw the court’s decision
Athena Stavrou
Thursday 17 April 2025
THE INDEPENDENT
MAFS’ first trans star Ella Morgan warns UK Supreme Court ruling could amplify abuse
The first trans woman to appear on Married at First Sight UK has voiced her concern that the Supreme Court’s ruling that transgender women are not legally women will be used as an “excuse” to attack the community even more.
On Wednesday, UK Supreme Court judges decided unanimously that Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.- meaning transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are not considered legally women.
The decision could have wide-ranging consequences for trans women’s rights, including potentially being excluded from services and spaces meant for women.
Ella Morgan, a TV personality and trans campaigner said she was “speechless” when she saw the court’s decision.
“I woke up today and saw my rights as a human being have been taken away,” she told The Independent.
We left it to the Supreme Court to decide ‘what a woman is’ – they chose wrong
“Since I’ve been in the public eye, I’ve never been scared, but today was the first time I am worried for me and other trans people.”
Ms Morgan, who was the first trans woman to appear on Channel 4’s Married at First Sight UK added she was worried the ruling would be used as an “excuse” by some to abuse trans people “more than they already do”, calling the decision “an attack on trans women and their existence.”
open image in galleryMs Morgan, who was the first trans woman to appear on Channel 4’s Married at First Sight UK added she was worried the ruling would be used as an “excuse” by some to abuse trans people “more than they already do”. (Supplied)
She said: “I don’t know how some people will sleep at night when trans people are murdered, assaulted and brutally attacked because of this [ruling].”
Ms Morgan also said she was concerned what the implications of the decision could be on her access to women’s spaces - for example whether she would now be admitted to a female ward in hospital.
However, Ms Morgan said the ruling will not “scare us away” and added: “If people think implementing laws will eradicate trans women, they are wrong.
“We have always existed and will always exist, this will never scare us away and if anything our fight will be stronger.”
open image in galleryTrans rights groups have reacted with dismay to Wednesday’s ruling, warning that it will “exclude trans people wholesale from participating in UK society”. (Getty Images)
Trans rights groups have reacted with dismay to Wednesday’s ruling, warning that it will “exclude trans people wholesale from participating in UK society”.
Transgender rights campaign group TransLucent said: “Many in the trans community will be extremely worried by this decision and its implications”.
“We would like to reassure them that they are still protected from discrimination, victimisation and harassment because of their protected characteristic of gender reassignment,” they added in a statement.
The Supreme Court ruling means that transgender women with a GRC can be excluded from single-sex spaces if “proportionate”.
Officials have confirmed the NHS is now looking at updating its official guidance on same-sex wards to reflect the ruling, which currently says trans people “should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use”.
The first trans woman to appear on Married at First Sight UK has voiced her concern that the Supreme Court’s ruling that transgender women are not legally women will be used as an “excuse” to attack the community even more.
On Wednesday, UK Supreme Court judges decided unanimously that Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.- meaning transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are not considered legally women.
The decision could have wide-ranging consequences for trans women’s rights, including potentially being excluded from services and spaces meant for women.
Ella Morgan, a TV personality and trans campaigner said she was “speechless” when she saw the court’s decision.
“I woke up today and saw my rights as a human being have been taken away,” she told The Independent.
We left it to the Supreme Court to decide ‘what a woman is’ – they chose wrong
“Since I’ve been in the public eye, I’ve never been scared, but today was the first time I am worried for me and other trans people.”
Ms Morgan, who was the first trans woman to appear on Channel 4’s Married at First Sight UK added she was worried the ruling would be used as an “excuse” by some to abuse trans people “more than they already do”, calling the decision “an attack on trans women and their existence.”
open image in galleryMs Morgan, who was the first trans woman to appear on Channel 4’s Married at First Sight UK added she was worried the ruling would be used as an “excuse” by some to abuse trans people “more than they already do”. (Supplied)
She said: “I don’t know how some people will sleep at night when trans people are murdered, assaulted and brutally attacked because of this [ruling].”
Ms Morgan also said she was concerned what the implications of the decision could be on her access to women’s spaces - for example whether she would now be admitted to a female ward in hospital.
However, Ms Morgan said the ruling will not “scare us away” and added: “If people think implementing laws will eradicate trans women, they are wrong.
“We have always existed and will always exist, this will never scare us away and if anything our fight will be stronger.”
open image in galleryTrans rights groups have reacted with dismay to Wednesday’s ruling, warning that it will “exclude trans people wholesale from participating in UK society”. (Getty Images)
Trans rights groups have reacted with dismay to Wednesday’s ruling, warning that it will “exclude trans people wholesale from participating in UK society”.
Transgender rights campaign group TransLucent said: “Many in the trans community will be extremely worried by this decision and its implications”.
“We would like to reassure them that they are still protected from discrimination, victimisation and harassment because of their protected characteristic of gender reassignment,” they added in a statement.
The Supreme Court ruling means that transgender women with a GRC can be excluded from single-sex spaces if “proportionate”.
Officials have confirmed the NHS is now looking at updating its official guidance on same-sex wards to reflect the ruling, which currently says trans people “should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use”.
UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of woman based on biological sex
By Jo Faragher
The Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010 is based on biological sex.
In the case of For Women Scotland vs The Scottish Ministers, Judge Lord Hodge said: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
“But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not.”
The decision comes after a long-running battle between the Scottish government and campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS), which objected to a proposed amendment to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.
This proposed expanding the scope of the legislation to include all trans women, including those who did not have a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
FWS launched a judicial review, arguing that the Scottish government had used too wide a definition of woman, and the inner court of session in Edinburgh agreed.
MSPs in Scotland then revised statutory guidance to follow the Equality Act 2010, which would include transgender women who did have a GRC within the definition of woman.
FWS objected to this and launched another judicial review, which was dismissed. Through a crowdfunder and support from author JK Rowling, the group brought the case to the Supreme Court.
The key decision the Supreme Court needed to make was whether a person with a GRC who recognises their gender as female should be regarded as a woman under the Equality Act, meaning they would, therefore, gain protective rights such as the right to equal pay and protection from discrimination.
Under the Gender Recognition Act of 2004, people can obtain a GRC, which states this is a change of sex “for all purposes”. However, the subsequent Equality Act 2010 then outlined protections against discrimination for various groups, with protected characteristics under law including sex and gender reassignment.
How these two pieces of legislation interact was one of the focuses of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Lord Hodge insisted that the Equality Act would still give trans people protection against discrimination.
“As I shall explain later in this hand down speech, the Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender,” he said.
The judges argued that including people with a GRC in the definition of sex for the purposes of the Equality Act would make it read in an “incoherent way”. Issues relating to pregnancy and maternity can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex, while other parts of the Act refer to “certificated sex”.
Phillip Pepper, employment partner at law firm, Shakespeare Martineau, said that, while the ruling could create “further division and increase tensions” in the short term, it would offer “long-term clarity for businesses which have been left to interpret ambiguous, contradictory legislation on their own until this point, potentially landing in hot water as a result”.
Recent legal disputes involving changing rooms, including a tribunal brought against NHS Fife by nurse Sandie Peggie, and a group of nurses in Darlington against their NHS Trust, have highlighted the thorny legal issues associated with providing single-sex spaces at work.
Pepper added: “The Equality Act urgently needs to be updated to ensure that transgender individuals don’t lose any of the protections they currently have from discrimination, and prevent potential inequality of treatment that may occur as a result of this judgement.”
He added that employers should take extra care to ensure that transgender employees feel safe, represented and valued in the workplace.
“Employers may have to rethink their policy towards single-sex spaces in the workplace, such as bathrooms and changing rooms, and ensure that all individuals have a suitable space that they feel comfortable in when needing to use those facilities,” he said.
“Some workplaces have become divided on the issue, which means communication, training and zero tolerance on bullying will be vital to ensure that transgender employees do not feel uncomfortable at work.
While this decision will be disappointing for some, it ultimately offers a clear path forward for employers which can now ensure they stay on the right side of law.”
Rob McKellar, legal services director at Peninsula, also welcomed the legal clarity brought by the ruling. “The main takeaway here for employers is that although this ruling has confirmed that in the Equality Act 2010 the words ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex, transgender people are still protected under the Act,” he said.
“The ruling does not change the fact that employers should strive to provide an inclusive workplace that embraces and welcomes all individuals, regardless of any protected characteristics, and failure to do so could result in a discrimination claim at tribunal.”
Jo Moseley, an employment law associate at Irwin Mitchell, agreed that the decision would make it easier for employers to understand the rules around providing single-sex and separate sex spaces and services, as well as those around appointing someone of one sex where there is a genuine occupational requirement.
“It will also mean that employers will be able to understand the correct comparator in sex discrimination and sexual orientation claims and take positive action to support women to progress at work,” she explained.
“It doesn’t leave trans people without protection. The Supreme Court made it very clear that they are protected under the gender reassignment provisions in the Equality Act and will be able to bring claims if they are discriminated or harassed.
“For example a trans woman will be able to bring a sex discrimination claim if they are disadvantaged because they are perceived to be a woman or because they associate with a woman. Similarly, a man who identifies as a woman who is treated less favourably because of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, will be able to claim on that basis.
“Ultimately, this decision gives employers much needed legal certainty and will help them to make legally compliant decisions.”
By Jo Faragher
17 April 2025
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS CO. UK
The Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010 is based on biological sex.
In the case of For Women Scotland vs The Scottish Ministers, Judge Lord Hodge said: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
“But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not.”
The decision comes after a long-running battle between the Scottish government and campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS), which objected to a proposed amendment to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.
This proposed expanding the scope of the legislation to include all trans women, including those who did not have a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
FWS launched a judicial review, arguing that the Scottish government had used too wide a definition of woman, and the inner court of session in Edinburgh agreed.
MSPs in Scotland then revised statutory guidance to follow the Equality Act 2010, which would include transgender women who did have a GRC within the definition of woman.
FWS objected to this and launched another judicial review, which was dismissed. Through a crowdfunder and support from author JK Rowling, the group brought the case to the Supreme Court.
The key decision the Supreme Court needed to make was whether a person with a GRC who recognises their gender as female should be regarded as a woman under the Equality Act, meaning they would, therefore, gain protective rights such as the right to equal pay and protection from discrimination.
Under the Gender Recognition Act of 2004, people can obtain a GRC, which states this is a change of sex “for all purposes”. However, the subsequent Equality Act 2010 then outlined protections against discrimination for various groups, with protected characteristics under law including sex and gender reassignment.
How these two pieces of legislation interact was one of the focuses of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Lord Hodge insisted that the Equality Act would still give trans people protection against discrimination.
“As I shall explain later in this hand down speech, the Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender,” he said.
The judges argued that including people with a GRC in the definition of sex for the purposes of the Equality Act would make it read in an “incoherent way”. Issues relating to pregnancy and maternity can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex, while other parts of the Act refer to “certificated sex”.
Phillip Pepper, employment partner at law firm, Shakespeare Martineau, said that, while the ruling could create “further division and increase tensions” in the short term, it would offer “long-term clarity for businesses which have been left to interpret ambiguous, contradictory legislation on their own until this point, potentially landing in hot water as a result”.
Recent legal disputes involving changing rooms, including a tribunal brought against NHS Fife by nurse Sandie Peggie, and a group of nurses in Darlington against their NHS Trust, have highlighted the thorny legal issues associated with providing single-sex spaces at work.
Pepper added: “The Equality Act urgently needs to be updated to ensure that transgender individuals don’t lose any of the protections they currently have from discrimination, and prevent potential inequality of treatment that may occur as a result of this judgement.”
He added that employers should take extra care to ensure that transgender employees feel safe, represented and valued in the workplace.
“Employers may have to rethink their policy towards single-sex spaces in the workplace, such as bathrooms and changing rooms, and ensure that all individuals have a suitable space that they feel comfortable in when needing to use those facilities,” he said.
“Some workplaces have become divided on the issue, which means communication, training and zero tolerance on bullying will be vital to ensure that transgender employees do not feel uncomfortable at work.
While this decision will be disappointing for some, it ultimately offers a clear path forward for employers which can now ensure they stay on the right side of law.”
Rob McKellar, legal services director at Peninsula, also welcomed the legal clarity brought by the ruling. “The main takeaway here for employers is that although this ruling has confirmed that in the Equality Act 2010 the words ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex, transgender people are still protected under the Act,” he said.
“The ruling does not change the fact that employers should strive to provide an inclusive workplace that embraces and welcomes all individuals, regardless of any protected characteristics, and failure to do so could result in a discrimination claim at tribunal.”
Jo Moseley, an employment law associate at Irwin Mitchell, agreed that the decision would make it easier for employers to understand the rules around providing single-sex and separate sex spaces and services, as well as those around appointing someone of one sex where there is a genuine occupational requirement.
“It will also mean that employers will be able to understand the correct comparator in sex discrimination and sexual orientation claims and take positive action to support women to progress at work,” she explained.
“It doesn’t leave trans people without protection. The Supreme Court made it very clear that they are protected under the gender reassignment provisions in the Equality Act and will be able to bring claims if they are discriminated or harassed.
“For example a trans woman will be able to bring a sex discrimination claim if they are disadvantaged because they are perceived to be a woman or because they associate with a woman. Similarly, a man who identifies as a woman who is treated less favourably because of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, will be able to claim on that basis.
“Ultimately, this decision gives employers much needed legal certainty and will help them to make legally compliant decisions.”
AND SO IT BEGINS
NHS to be pursued if gender policies on single-sex wards don’t change, warns equalities watchdog
The current NHS guidance means trans people are accommodated according to their presentation, but Wednesday’s ruling now means wards must accommodate patients based on their biological sex
Millie Cooke
Political Correspondent
Thursday 17 April 2025
The NHS will be pursued if it does not follow new guidance on gender and single-sex spaces, the equalities watchdog has warned in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that transgender women are not legally women.
The judgment, which stated that the definition of a woman in equality law is based on biological sex, means trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if doing so is deemed “proportionate”.
Current NHS guidance means trans people are accommodated on wards and other areas according to their presentation – the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they use. But Wednesday’s ruling now means NHS wards must accommodate patients based on their biological sex.
The current NHS guidance means trans people are accommodated according to their presentation, but Wednesday’s ruling now means wards must accommodate patients based on their biological sex
Millie Cooke
Political Correspondent
Thursday 17 April 2025
THE INDEPENDENT
The NHS will be pursued if it does not follow new guidance on gender and single-sex spaces, the equalities watchdog has warned in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that transgender women are not legally women.
The judgment, which stated that the definition of a woman in equality law is based on biological sex, means trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if doing so is deemed “proportionate”.
Current NHS guidance means trans people are accommodated on wards and other areas according to their presentation – the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they use. But Wednesday’s ruling now means NHS wards must accommodate patients based on their biological sex.
Kishwer Falkner, chair of the EHRC, which says it is ‘working at pace’ to provide an updated code of conduct for services (PA)
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said it was “working at pace” to provide an updated code of conduct for services, including the NHS and prisons. And now its chair has confirmed that the watchdog will pursue the NHS if it does not change its guidance.
Kishwer Falkner told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday morning: “[The NHS] have to change it. They now have clarity. There is no confusion as of yesterday, at 10.30 in the morning, and they can start to implement the new legal reasoning and produce their exceptions forthwith, but they have to change it. We will be having conversations with them to update that guidance.”
Asked if the EHRC would pursue the case if this doesn’t happen, Baroness Falkner replied: “Yes, we will.”
Officials have confirmed that the NHS is looking to update its official guidance on same-sex wards to reflect the ruling. But no further information has been given on where trans women will be accommodated if they can no longer use single-sex wards.
Baroness Falkner also said the “efficacy” of the gender recognition certificate (GRC) – a UK legal document that recognises an individual’s gender identity, allowing them to legally change their sex – will be re-examined after the ruling.
She said the “next stage of litigation may well be tests as to the efficacy of the GRC, and or other areas”.
Asked about whether she thinks GRCs are now “worthless”, she replied: “We don’t believe they are. We think they’re quite important. But I think there will be other areas: I mean, the government is thinking of digital IDs, and if digital IDs come in, then what documentation will provide the identity of that person?
“So it’s going to be a space that we’ll have to watch very carefully as we go on.”
The Supreme Court’s judgment came after the campaign group For Women Scotland brought a series of challenges – including to the UK’s highest court – over the definition of “woman” in Scottish legislation that mandates 50 per cent female representation on public boards.
Gender-critical rights campaigners hailed the ruling as a victory for biological women and an important milestone in their fight to protect single-sex spaces.
But trans rights groups warned that it will “exclude trans people wholesale from participating in UK society”.
The director of trans campaign group TransActual, jane fae, said: “The entire trans community is devastated. Irrespective of the small print on this ruling, the intent seems clear: to exclude trans people wholesale from participating in UK society.”
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said it was “working at pace” to provide an updated code of conduct for services, including the NHS and prisons. And now its chair has confirmed that the watchdog will pursue the NHS if it does not change its guidance.
Kishwer Falkner told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday morning: “[The NHS] have to change it. They now have clarity. There is no confusion as of yesterday, at 10.30 in the morning, and they can start to implement the new legal reasoning and produce their exceptions forthwith, but they have to change it. We will be having conversations with them to update that guidance.”
Asked if the EHRC would pursue the case if this doesn’t happen, Baroness Falkner replied: “Yes, we will.”
Officials have confirmed that the NHS is looking to update its official guidance on same-sex wards to reflect the ruling. But no further information has been given on where trans women will be accommodated if they can no longer use single-sex wards.
Baroness Falkner also said the “efficacy” of the gender recognition certificate (GRC) – a UK legal document that recognises an individual’s gender identity, allowing them to legally change their sex – will be re-examined after the ruling.
She said the “next stage of litigation may well be tests as to the efficacy of the GRC, and or other areas”.
Asked about whether she thinks GRCs are now “worthless”, she replied: “We don’t believe they are. We think they’re quite important. But I think there will be other areas: I mean, the government is thinking of digital IDs, and if digital IDs come in, then what documentation will provide the identity of that person?
“So it’s going to be a space that we’ll have to watch very carefully as we go on.”
The Supreme Court’s judgment came after the campaign group For Women Scotland brought a series of challenges – including to the UK’s highest court – over the definition of “woman” in Scottish legislation that mandates 50 per cent female representation on public boards.
Gender-critical rights campaigners hailed the ruling as a victory for biological women and an important milestone in their fight to protect single-sex spaces.
But trans rights groups warned that it will “exclude trans people wholesale from participating in UK society”.
The director of trans campaign group TransActual, jane fae, said: “The entire trans community is devastated. Irrespective of the small print on this ruling, the intent seems clear: to exclude trans people wholesale from participating in UK society.”
No comments:
Post a Comment