Author JK Rowling has welcomed a UK ruling on biological women. Picture / Supplied
Author JK Rowling has welcomed a UK ruling on biological women. Picture / Supplied
The Supreme Court ruled that sex-based discrimination laws apply only to biological women.
Public bodies, including the NHS and police, must update guidance following the ruling.
JK Rowling and women’s rights groups welcomed the decision, citing protection for women and girls.
Public bodies are under pressure to tear up pro-trans guidance after a ruling that only biological women are women.
The decision by the Supreme Court that laws against sex-based discrimination should only apply to biological women will lead to a raft of changes. They are expected to include who can access single-sex NHS wards, which police officers can carry out strip searches, and who can join female teams in elite sport.
Previously, trans women were given the same rights as biological women, allowing them access to female-only spaces and groups. Although the judges said that trans women could not be discriminated against, the ruling means they will no longer be treated the same as people born female.
Last night, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the government watchdog, promised to rewrite its guidance to public bodies by the summer.
The NHS, National Police Chiefs Council and other bodies are also expected to update guidance soon.
Author welcomes ruling
The Supreme Court’s judgment was welcomed by Harry Potter author JK Rowling, a prominent women’s rights campaigner, who said it would “protect the rights of women and girls across the UK”.
She added: “Spare a thought today for the UK employers, government departments, health boards, academic institutions and sporting bodies who’ve been breaking equality law to appease activist groups.
“So many HR manuals to pulp. So many out-of-court settlements to pay.”
Judges unanimously ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not the gender with which a person identifies.
The justices said that for the purpose of equality laws, transgender women were not legally women, even if they have a gender recognition certificate.
They found that blurring the boundary of sex would also create “confusion and impracticability” around the provision of “single sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces”.
Rules need rewriting
Judges also ruled that sex is binary, meaning that the central tenet of gender ideology – that there is a spectrum of gender identities – has no basis in law.
The ruling means that people who were born male can lawfully be excluded from women’s sports, changing rooms, lavatories, women-only support groups and women-only shortlists. The judgment will require a wholesale rewriting of rules across the public and private sectors.
The ruling
Handing down the judgment on whether sex-based protections should only apply to people who were born female, Lord Hodge, the court’s deputy president, said: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the definition of the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.
The justices made clear that their decision made no difference to protections against discrimination for transgender people, and insisted it should not be interpreted as “a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”.
Hodge said: “Interpreting sex as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the [Equality Act 2010] – and thus the protected characteristic of sex – in an incoherent way.”
Hodge, the deputy president of the Supreme Court, said that interpreting sex as certificated would be “incoherent”.
It followed a years-long legal battle between For Women Scotland, a campaign group, and the Scottish Government over the definition of a woman.
Campaigners welcomed the ruling. Sex Matters, a women’s rights group, said: “We are delighted that For Women Scotland has been successful in its appeal to the Supreme Court, and that the position of the Scottish Government has been rejected.
“The court has given the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not paperwork.”
Rowling posted: “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.”
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said the ruling meant that the “era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end”.
Kemi Badenoch. Photo / Supplied
Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, said: “The Supreme Court rules that a woman is legally defined as a woman and that the concept of sex is binary … Yes, the science was settled in the Precambrian. Nice that the law has finally caught up.”
A government spokesman said: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.
“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.”
Calls on Starmer
Labour Women’s Declaration, a gender-critical group, called on Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, to take concrete action to ensure the judgment was fully reflected in all public sector guidance.
It said: “The Government now needs to instruct all government departments to bring their policies, training and guidance into line with the judgment.
“The ‘clarity and confidence’ the ruling brings must also be applied to all positive action initiatives and associations for women within the Labour Party, such as women’s branches and committees.”
In February, Wes Streeting told the Darlington nurses – eight nurses suing their trust after being forced to share a changing room with a transgender colleague – that he would wait until the Supreme Court ruling before issuing new guidance on single-sex spaces.
In a letter to them, seen by the Telegraph, he said: “Given the sensitivity of the issue, it is important to me that any changes made are credible and enduring…
“When I have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision on this matter, I will consider what steps to take.”
A Whitehall source said the Government’s legal department would now consider the ruling in full before publishing new guidance.
It is understood that the NPCC will consider the ruling before bringing out new guidance for the police. It follows criticism that some forces are allowing trans women – that is biological men – to strip-search vulnerable females.
‘Working at pace’
Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the chairman of the EHRC, said: “We will take the outcome of this appeal into account in our ongoing work as the regulator of the Equality Act.
“That includes the development of our revised code of practice which, subject to ministerial approval, is expected to be laid before Parliament before the summer recess.
“We will be working at pace to incorporate the implications of this judgment into the updated code, which supports service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties under the Equality Act and put them into practice.
“Where this judgment impacts upon our other advice for duty-bearers, such as our single-sex services guidance, we will review it as a matter of urgency and alert users to where guidance has been withdrawn or needs to be updated.”
Despite the decision, trans activists insisted they would force Starmer to back their agenda.
Labour for Trans Rights, a grass-roots organisation, said: “We will continue to fight against all attempts to strip trans people of their rights, and will use all levers within the Labour Party to make trans voices heard.”
