On 16 April 2025, the UK Supreme Court made a landmark ruling, ruling that the definition of “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 must be based on biological gender. This could lead to major changes in how gender-based benefits are applied, especially in areas reserved for women.
In his judgment, Lord Hodge said that the Supreme Court judges had agreed that the terms “women” and “gender” in the Equality Act 2010 referred to “biological women” and “biological gender.” The court noted that while there were strong views on both sides, the judgment was not a victory for either side, but an important step in protecting the rights of both women and transgender communities.
This ruling follows a long-running case between the Scottish Government and the campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS), over the question of whether a person who holds a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) can be considered a woman and be recognised as such under the Equality Act.
The Supreme Court said that women’s rights protections must continue to be a priority in women’s spaces, such as locker rooms, prisons and support centers for victims of sexual violence. However, the Court also emphasized that the transgender community is still protected from gender-based discrimination and harassment and that their rights are not compromised.
The FWS group has asked the Court to reject the recognition of transgender people as women in gender laws, especially in situations such as recruitment, sports and feminist organizations. They believe this would threaten the rights of biological women, especially feminist and lesbian groups.
After the verdict was published, feminist groups celebrated the ruling, noting that many of them were victories for women’s rights. However, some transgender rights groups criticized the ruling, saying it was the result of a movement by anti-transgender transgender networks and global advocacy groups.
Political leaders also reacted strongly. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch praised the ruling, saying it was a victory for women and that it had helped end the controversy over whether women should have a “penis.” Meanwhile, Mims Davies, the opposition minister for women, praised the ruling as a “victory for reason.”
This ruling could have a significant impact on the functioning of public services and spaces reserved for women, including hospitals, temporary shelters and sports centers. The government has pledged to protect spaces reserved for women, such as toilets and changing rooms, based on biological gender.
Meanwhile, the LGB Alliance and lesbian rights groups said the ruling represents a major victory in the fight to protect lesbian rights, especially amid mounting attacks from proponents of sex theory.
The Supreme Court ruling marks a major turning point in the long-running debate over women’s and transgender rights. While there are mixed opinions, it is a decision that could be profoundly affected by gender benefits and how public services serve people in the future.
