🚨 UNITED KINGDOM 🇬🇧 SUPREME COURT 🏛️ 👨‍⚖️ RULES “TRANSGENDER WOMEN” 🙅‍♀ ARE NOT ❌ WOMEN 🚫🏳️‍⚧️ 👎 STRENGTHENS WOMENS PROTECTIONS LAWS ♀ 👩

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
320,471
Reputation
-34,090
Daps
628,875
Reppin
The Deep State

q6OLGPA.jpg

























 
Last edited:

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
320,471
Reputation
-34,090
Daps
628,875
Reppin
The Deep State

Gender critical campaigners win at UK supreme court over definition of woman​

Judges rule that Equality Act definition excludes transgender women holding gender recognition certificates​

Severin Carrell
UK supreme court rules definition of woman in Equality Act refers to ‘a biological woman’ – video
Gender critical rights campaigners have won their supreme court challenge over the definition of a woman.

Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).


In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, their decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.

It could have far wider ramifications by leading to much greater restrictions on the rights of transgender women to use services and spaces reserved for women, and spark calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.

Lord Hodge told the court the Equality Act (EA) was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.

That affected policy-making on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said.

In a verbal summary of the decision, he said: “Interpreting sex as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of man and woman in the EA and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way. It would create heterogeneous groupings.

“As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination, and especially those relating to pregnancy and maternity and to protection from risks specifically affecting women, can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.”

Trans rights campaigners urged trans people and their supporters to remain calm about the decision.

The campaign group Scottish Trans said on social media: “We’d urge people not to panic – there will be lots of commentary coming out quickly that is likely to deliberately overstate the impact that this decision is going to have on all trans people’s lives. We’ll say more as soon as we’re able to. Please look out for yourselves and each other today.”

Ellie Gomersall, a trans woman in the Scottish Green party, called on the UK government to change the law to entrench full equality for trans people.

Gomersall said: “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, for almost all intents and purposes, recognised legally as our true genders.

“These protections were put in place in 2004 following a ruling by the European court of human rights, meaning today’s ruling undermines the vital human rights of my community to dignity, safety and the right to be respected for who we are.”

The gender critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, said the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female.

Maya Forstater, a gender critical activist who helped set up the campaign group Sex Matters, which took part in the supreme court case by supporting For Women Scotland, said the decision was correct.

“We are delighted that the supreme court has accepted the arguments of For WomenScotland and rejected the position of the Scottish government. The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not to paperwork.”

Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said it believed the position taken by the Scottish government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission that people with gender recognition certificates did qualify as women, while those without did not, created “two sub-groups”.

This would confuse any organisations they were involved with. A public body could not know whether a trans woman did or did not have that certificate because the information was private and confidential.

And allowing trans women the same legal status as biological women could also affect spaces and services designed specifically for lesbians, who had also suffered historical discrimination and abuse.

In part of the ruling that could have sweeping implications for policy-makers in the sports world and sports centres, he said some services and places could “function properly only if sex is interpreted as biological sex”.

“Those provisions include separate spaces and single-sex services, including changing rooms, hostels, medical services, communal accommodation, [and] arise in the operation of provisions relating to single-sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty and the armed forces.”

Hodge urged people not to see the decision “as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”. He said all transgender people had clear legal protections under the 2010 act against discrimination and harassment.

Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which had intervened in the case to support the Scottish government’s stance, said it would need time to fully interpret the ruling’s implications.

However, the commission was pleased it had dealt with its concerns about the lack of clarity around single-sex and lesbian-only spaces.

“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.”


@A-dotty @Adeptus Astartes @dora_da_destroyer @Rekkapryde @Neo. The Only. The One. @the cac mamba @Uachet @Absolut @Sterling Archer @TheDarkCloud @Max Power
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
320,471
Reputation
-34,090
Daps
628,875
Reppin
The Deep State

U.K. Top Court Says Trans Women Are Not Legally Women Under Equality Act

Britain’s Supreme Court ruled that the word “woman” refers to biological sex under the country’s anti-discrimination law, in a blow to trans rights activists.

April 16, 2025
Updated 9:08 a.m. ET

British Court Rules Legal Definition of Women is Based on Biological Sex

Britain’s Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that trans women do not meet the legal definition of female under the country’s Equality Act. However, the court said that transgender people continue to have protections under anti-discrimination and equality laws.

The Central question on this appeal is the meaning of the terms woman and sex in the ‘Equality Act 2010.’ Do those terms refer to biological women or biological sex, or is a woman to be interpreted as extending to a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate? and sex to be interpreted as including what I will refer to as certificated sex. 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.
Britain’s Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that trans women do not meet the legal definition of female under the country’s Equality Act. However, the court said that transgender people continue to have protections under anti-discrimination and equality laws.Supreme Court, via Reuters

The Supreme Court in Britain ruled on Wednesday that trans women do not fall within the legal definition of women under the country’s equality legislation.

The landmark judgment, which said that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, is a blow to campaigners for transgender rights. It could have far-reaching consequences for how the law is applied in Britain to some single-sex services like domestic violence shelters, as well as to equal pay claims and maternity policies.

It follows a yearslong legal battle that began in Scotland over whether trans women can be regarded as female under Britain’s 2010 Equality Act, which aims to prevent discrimination. And it comes amid intense and at times bitter public debate over the intersection of transgender rights and women’s rights.

Announcing the decision on Wednesday, the deputy president of the court, Lord Hodge, said: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological women and biological sex.”

However, he added: “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.” He said the ruling “does not cause disadvantage to trans people” because they continue to have protections against discrimination under another part of the Equality Act.

Lord Hodge began his remarks by acknowledging the national conversation about transgender rights, and described trans people as a “vulnerable and often harassed minority,” while noting that women had long fought for equal rights with men.

He added: “It is not the task of this court to make policy on how the interests of these groups should be protected” but “to ascertain the meaning of the legislation which Parliament has enacted.”

He requested that the courtroom remain silent while the judgment was read, but gasps were heard when he announced the decision. Campaigners from For Women Scotland, the activist group that had brought the legal challenge, started a round of applause and hugged when the hearing ended.

The decision will likely be welcome news for Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Some legal scholars had theorized that the Supreme Court might refuse to rule and would instead force the government to weigh in on a thorny and divisive issue.

How is the court’s decision being received?

Speaking outside the court afterward, Susan Smith, the co-director of For Women Scotland, said the judgment would ensure that “services and spaces designated for women are for women.”

She added: “Everybody should be protected by the Equality Act. This is not about prejudice or bigotry, as some people would say, it’s not about hatred for another community. It’s just about saying that there are differences, and biology is one of those differences, and we just need protections based on that.”

Two women walking out of a big courthouse, smiling and with arms held high.
Marion Calder and Susan Smith from “For Women Scotland” celebrating outside of the Supreme Court in London on Wednesday.Kin Cheung/Associated Press
In a statement following the ruling, Scottish Trans, which campaigns for gender identity rights, cautioned against misinterpreting the court’s decision. “We’d urge people not to panic,” they said in a post on social media. “There will be lots of commentary coming out quickly that is likely to deliberately overstate the impact that this decision is going to have on all trans people’s lives.”

And Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of Amnesty International UK, said it would take time to analyze the full implications. “There are potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment,” he said in a statement. “The ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’.”

Although the case was focused on the legal definition of women, it also applies to trans men because the Supreme Court ruled on the broader meaning of “sex” as being “biological sex” under the Equality Act 2010.

Why did the Supreme Court weigh in?

The origins lie in a law that the Scottish Parliament passed in 2018, aiming to increase the proportion of women on government agency boards to 50 percent. As part of that legislation, the government said that trans women could count toward the target.:gucci: :mindblown: :mjlol:

For Women Scotland took the Scottish government to court, arguing that trans women should not be included as part of the quotas. The government amended its guidance to say that only trans women with a so-called gender recognition certificate met the definition of a woman under the Equality Act of 2010, and could therefore be included in the quotas.

Gender recognition certificates are legal documents granted by the British government to people meeting various requirements, which include having lived in their acquired gender for two years and intending to do so for the rest of their life, and being diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

The For Women Scotland group continued to challenge the Scottish government in a series of court cases. In December 2022, a judge in Scotland’s highest court, Lady Haldane, rejected their arguments, saying that the definition of sex was “not limited to biological or birth sex” for the purposes of the act.
 
Last edited:

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
320,471
Reputation
-34,090
Daps
628,875
Reppin
The Deep State

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
320,471
Reputation
-34,090
Daps
628,875
Reppin
The Deep State


Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman


7 minutes ago
Watch Lord Hodge give Supreme Court ruling

Judges at the UK Supreme Court have unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

It marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle which could have major implications for how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.

The court sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against the Scottish government arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to people that are born female.

Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, and stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people.

The Scottish government argued in court that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) are entitled to the same sex-based protections as biological women.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act, which applies across Britain.

Lord Hodge said the central question was how the words "woman" and "sex" are defined in the legislation.

He told the court: "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 judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not."

He added that the legislation 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".

EPA A group of women gathered outside the Supreme CourtEPA
The Supreme Court case follows years of legal arguments over the definition of a woman under the law
Campaigners who brought the case against the Scottish government hugged each other and punched the air as they left the courtroom, with several of them in tears.

The Equality Act provides protection against discrimination on the basis of various characteristics, including "sex" and "gender reassignment".

Judges at the Supreme Court in London were asked to rule on what that law means by "sex" - whether it means biological sex, or legal, "certificated" sex as defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

The Scottish government argued the 2004 legislation was clear that obtaining a GRC amounts to a change of sex "for all purposes".

For Women Scotland argued for a "common sense" interpretation of the words man and woman, telling the court that sex is an "immutable biological state".

EPA Women hold flags and signs saying "women are adult human females" in an outdoor demonstration.EPA
Campaigners gathered outside the Supreme Court for the verdict
First Minister John Swinney said the Scottish government accepted the judgement.

He posted on social media: "The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster.

"We will now engage on the implications of the ruling."

Swinney added: "Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions."

Outside the Supreme Court, For Women Scotland co-founder Susan Smith said: "Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex.

"Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the Supreme Court for this ruling."

A UK government spokesman said: "This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.

"Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government."

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described the ruling as a "victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious".

"It's important to be reminded the court strongly and clearly re-affirmed the Equality Act protects all trans people against discrimination, based on gender reassignment, and will continue to do so."

'Deep concern'


Harry Potter author JK Rowling posted on social media: "It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the UK."

But Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman, a prominent campaigner for trans-rights, said: "This is a deeply concerning ruling for human rights and a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society.

"It could remove important protections and will leave many trans people and their loved ones deeply anxious and worried about how their lives will be affected and about what will come next."

Stonewall chief executive Simon Blake said the LGBTQ+ charity shared "deep concern" about the ruling.

For Women Scotland had warned that if the court sided with the Scottish government, it would have implications for the running of single-sex spaces and services, such as hospital wards, prisons, refuges and support groups.

Transgender people warned the case could erode the protections they have against discrimination in their reassigned gender.

The case follows years of heated debate over transgender and women's rights, including controversy over transgender rapist Isla Bryson initially being put in a women's prison and an ongoing employment tribunal involving a female NHS Fife nurse who objected to a transgender doctor using a women's changing room.

NHS Fife said it would "carefully consider" the court's judgement.

PA Media Two people holdings signs above their heads at a protest, photographed from a low angle. The signs say "trans rights are human rights". The person on the left is wearing a dark jacket and light grey hat. The person on the right has red hair and glasses, and is wearing a blue jacket and grey patterned scarf. People and UK government office buildings can be seen in the background. PA Media
The legal case has come at a time of heated debate on gender issues
The judges ruled that that Interpreting sex as "certificated" rather than "biological" would "cut across the definitions of man and "woman and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way".

They said a "certified" definition of sex would weaken protections for lesbians, citing the example of lesbian-only spaces and associations as it would mean that a trans woman who was attracted to women would be classed as a lesbian.

The ruling found the biological interpretation of sex was also required for single-sex spaces to "function coherently".

It cited changing rooms, hostels, medical services and single-sex higher education institutions.

The judges noted "similar confusion and impracticability" had arisen in relation to single-sex associations and charities, women's sport, public sector equality and the armed forces.

The judges added: "The practical problems that arise under a certificated sex approach are clear indicators that this interpretation is not correct."

How did we get here?


The legal dispute began in 2018, when the Scottish Parliament passed a bill designed to ensure gender balance on public sector boards.

For Women Scotland complained that ministers had included transgender people as part of the quotas in that law.

The issue has been contested several times in the Scottish courts.

Holyrood ministers won the most recent case in Scotland, with judge Lady Haldane ruling in 2022 that the definition of sex was "not limited to biological or birth sex".

The Scottish Parliament passed reforms that year that would have made it easier for someone to change their legally recognised sex.

The move was blocked by the UK government, and has since been dropped by Holyrood ministers.
 
Top