In a landmark ruling that navigates the complex legal terrain between gender identity and sex-based rights, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has clarified how the term “woman” is to be interpreted under the Equality Act 2010. The judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers ([2025] UKSC 16) addresses a pivotal question of statutory interpretation: whether a transgender woman who has obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is legally considered a “woman” for the purposes of UK anti-discrimination law.

At the heart of this dispute lies the intersection of two crucial legislative frameworks—the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004) and the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010)—and the constitutional limits of devolved powers under the Scotland Act 1998.

Background to the Dispute

The Scottish Parliament enacted the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which sought to ensure that 50% of non-executive members on public boards were women. However, its definition of “woman” controversially included certain trans women who had not acquired a GRC. This was challenged by the feminist group For Women Scotland, which argued that such a definition went beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament—since equality matters are a reserved subject under Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998.

The litigation journey saw victories and setbacks in both the Outer House and Inner House of the Court of Session, culminating in the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Core Legal Question

The central legal question was whether the term “sex” under the Equality Act 2010, particularly sections 11 and 212(1), refers solely to biological sex or also includes a person’s acquired sex under the GRA 2004—where section 9(1) provides that a person’s sex becomes that of their acquired gender “for all purposes” upon issuance of a GRC.

The UK Supreme Court’s Ruling

Delivering a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court held that:

A person who has obtained a full Gender Recognition Certificate is to be regarded as having changed sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, unless explicitly excluded by statute or where such inclusion renders the provision unworkable or absurd.

Key observations from the judgment include:

• Statutory Coherence: The Court emphasized that both the GRA 2004 and EA 2010 must be read harmoniously. There is no contradiction in interpreting “sex” to include “certificated sex” unless expressly or necessarily excluded.
• Presumption of Consistency: Relying on established canons of statutory interpretation, particularly from R (O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3, the Court noted that where terms like “sex,” “man,” and “woman” are used multiple times within a statute, they are presumed to have a consistent meaning.
• Limited Scope for Exceptions: While acknowledging that areas like pregnancy, maternity, or certain single-sex services may require exceptions (e.g., where biological sex is essential), such carve-outs must be explicitly provided or implied with clear necessity.
• Clarity on Legislative Competence: The Court upheld that the 2018 Act’s revised guidance, which included trans women with GRCs in the 50% gender quota, was within devolved competence, aligning with the EA 2010’s meaning of “woman.”

Key Takeaways

1. Legal Sex vs Biological Sex: The judgment affirms that for legal purposes—including anti-discrimination protections—a person’s sex can be their acquired sex via a GRC.
2. No Policy-Making by Judiciary: The Court consciously avoided stepping into ideological or policy domains, restricting its role to statutory interpretation.
3. Impact on Equality Law: This decision sets a binding precedent for interpreting the Equality Act 2010 in ways that affirm the rights of transgender persons with GRCs, while preserving space for exceptions where explicitly justified.
4. Implications for Devolved Legislatures: The ruling validates the ability of devolved governments to implement gender equality measures using legally recognized definitions under UK-wide legislation.

A Moment of Legal Reflection

This case is a significant illustration of the judiciary’s delicate role in modern identity jurisprudence—walking the line between respecting Parliamentary sovereignty, ensuring human rights protections, and preserving legal certainty. It also showcases how seemingly abstract questions of interpretation deeply affect lived realities, from representation on public boards to the operation of single-sex services.

As debates around gender, sex, and law evolve globally, For Women Scotland represents a definitive moment in the UK’s legal landscape—establishing that “sex” in law may reflect legal recognition rather than biological determinism, where a Gender Recognition Certificate has been granted.

---

Disclaimer

This article is intended for general information and academic discussion purposes only. The legal interpretation may vary based on jurisdictional context and statutory amendments. Please refer to the full judgment and relevant legislative texts for comprehensive understanding.