Supreme Court ruling on legal definition of ‘woman’

In 2004, the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) of the British parliament said that trans people should be treated according to their “acquired” gender for all purposes and created the gender recognition certificate (GRC) to affirm that protection. However, the decision by the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the term ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010 refers to a biological woman.

The ruling follows a series of legal challenges brought by the campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS), over what the definition of a “woman” is.

With this ruling, it has led many members of the transgender community feeling isolated and unsure of what the future may look like. The Supreme Court justices emphasised that transgender people already have protections against discrimination and harassment written into the Equality Act. The Supreme Court’s conclusion has stated that it ‘does not remove or diminish the important protections available under the EA 2010 for trans people with a GRC’, concluding that ‘this potentially vulnerable group remains protected in the ways we have described’.

It added: ‘The interpretation of the EA 2010 (ie the biological sex reading), which we conclude is the only correct one, does not cause disadvantage to trans people, with or without a GRC.’

Peter Byrne, head of employment law at Slater and Gordon says on the ruling: “This landmark ruling will change the employment landscape of gender-based rights in the UK. The practical implications of this are still to be seen but what we can take away from this is that transgender people will still be protected from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Many employers may have to reassess their policies and ensure everyone within their company have safe spaces. This will have an impact on transgender women and their rights with single-sex spaces. This will be an ongoing situation that companies will have to work through.”