How UK court definition of ‘woman’ could affect sex-based rights

The UK supreme court is to rule on how a woman is defined in law, the culmination of a long-running challenge brought against the Scottish government by the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS). The judgment could have a major bearing on how sex-based rights are applied through the Equality Act in Scotland, England and Wales. What has the supreme court been asked to rule on? The narrow point of law on which the court has been asked to rule is who counts as a woman under the UK’s Equality Act, and whether that legal definition includes transgender women possessing a gender recognition certificate (GRC). Although the court battle began in Scotland, the ruling, expected on Wednesday, could have significant implications for how single-sex spaces and services are run across England, Scotland and Wales and galvanise calls to amend the 2010 act. The issue has challenged politicians and policymakers in recent years as concerns about the clash between women’s rights and trans rights have grown; it was used as a political weapon towards the end of the previous Tory government. How did this case end up at the supreme court? Wednesday’s judgment concludes court action by FWS over Holyrood’s Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which was aimed at improving gender balance. An amendment to the SNP government’s bill, brought by a Scottish Labour MSP, expanded the scope of the legislation to include all trans women, whether or not they had applied for a GRC. FWS launched a judicial review, arguing that Holyrood had gone beyond its competence by using such a wide definition of “woman” and the inner court of session in Edinburgh agreed. Scottish ministers revised the statutory guidance, which stated the new law would follow the Equality Act by including transgender women who had a GRC within the definition of “woman”. FWS launched another judicial review, which was dismissed, and after further appeals brought the case to the supreme court. Its crowdfunder has so far raised £230,000, including £70,000 donated by the Harry Potter author and activist JK Rowling. Other prominent campaigners, including Sex Matters, which was founded by Maya Forstater after she won an employment tribunal that found she had been unfairly discriminated against because of her gender-critical beliefs, were granted leave to intervene in the case. No trans people were represented during the two days of legal argument last November. The retired judge Victoria McCloud, who changed her legal sex more than two decades ago, was refused permission to be heard in the case. She said: “Not permitting trans people to be heard was one of the boldest decisions made by this court. I am confident an appeal would be pursued at an international level if the appeal was allowed. I doubt that will be necessary.” What arguments were put to the supreme court? Aidan O’Neill KC told the court that FWS was arguing that “in the Equality Act sex just means sex, as that word [is] used in ordinary, everyday language … by ordinary people”. He argued that Scottish ministers’ position that the Equality Act created a “new legal category of ‘certificated sex’” – determined by what it said on a birth certificate, and whether that was later altered by a GRC – should be rejected. Ruth Crawford KC, responding on behalf of Scottish ministers, argued that transgender people had “a fundamental right” to be recognised in their legally acquired gender. She said the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was clear that a GRC changed sex “for all purposes” and someone with a GRC was entitled to legal protections “just as much as others enjoy those protections who are recorded as a woman at birth”. How could the ruling change life for women and trans people in Scotland, England and Wales? The Equality Act already allows transgender women to be excluded from women-only groups and services, such as refuges, prisons or clubs – even those holding a GRC – if it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. For example, Edinburgh Women’s Aid announced recently it would no longer let transgender women access its services. But FWS is concerned that, if it loses, using those exemptions would be made more complicated for women-only groups because a trans woman, deemed legally a woman, would therefore able to claim sex discrimination. Susan Smith of FWS said a victory “would put the protected status of sex beyond all doubt. “A ruling in our favour would clear up any ambiguity about the provision of single-sex spaces and services under the Equality Act and enable providers to act with confidence.” But trans-inclusive campaigners questioned this narrative of simple clarification, saying that if the supreme court allowed the appeal it would be going against 15 years of interpretation of the law, and would also undermine the premise of the Gender Recognition Act, which was to give legal recognition to an individual’s acquired gender. Whatever the outcome, it will not change the law, of course, but in its aftermath there are likely to be further calls to revisit the Equality Act. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the watchdog that enforces the 2010 act, argued for this in its own intervention in the case, suggesting MPs had not appreciated the consequences for women and lesbians of the law viewing a transgender woman with a GRC as legally female. But Amnesty International, the only trans-inclusive organisation to intervene, raised concerns that this case could be the “thin end of the wedge” in undermining other rights. If the legal sex of trans people with a GRC were reversed, it would result in trans people missing out on equal pay and sex discrimination rights, for example. In practice, it would affect a minority of trans people in the UK as only about 8,000 have applied for a GRC over the past 20 years. More significant, suggest trans advocates, is the ruling’s contribution to a wider atmosphere of hostility, resulting in many trans people already self-excluding from public spaces. Steph Richards, who runs the advocacy organisation TransLucent, predicted that legal actions such as this one would “result in trans people going back to live in stealth”. How will it affect Labour? A possible outcome of the case is that the court will agree with the previous interpretation of the law as it stands, but suggest parliament considers amending the Equality Act to deal with these previously unforeseen consequences. This was promised by Kemi Badenoch during last year’s general election campaign. Earlier this year the Guardian reported that Labour had quietly shelved its plans to make it easier for people to legally change their gender amid concerns about the rising popularity of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. But the government remains committed to a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, which is expected to be brought forward within months.