In For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court ruled that the terms “woman,” “man,” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) are to be understood as referring to biological sex. As a result, the definition of “woman” under the Act does not include trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). Despite this they continue to be protected under the characteristic of gender reassignment or based on their biological (or perceived biological) sex.
The issue initially emerged from a 2018 initiative by the Scottish Government aimed at increasing female representation on public boards. The accompanying statutory guidance stated that transgender women with a GRC were to be regarded as women for the purposes of the legislation and under the Equality Act. The Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018originally defined “woman” to include trans individuals under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This definition was ruled beyond the Scottish Parliament’s competence in For Women Scotland Ltd v Lord Advocate [2022].Revised guidance aligned with the Equality Act’s definition, which includes trans women with a GRC.
After the Scottish Government issued revised statutory guidance under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, For Women Scotland initiated a further judicial review against the Scottish Ministers, arguing that the guidance failed to comply with the decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v Lord Advocate [2022] and was therefore unlawful. The Court of Session upheld the guidance. For Women Scotland appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal.
It held that Parliament intended the terms “man,” “woman,” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 to refer to biological sex. Consequently, trans women with a GRC are not included in the definition of “woman” under the Act.
The Court held that the terms “man,” “woman,” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, and that including acquired gender via a GRC would undermine the Act’s consistency, especially in areas like pregnancy, maternity, and sex-based protections.
It found that extending rights based on GRC status could unfairly divide the trans community and create practical issues for service providers, who cannot legally ask about GRCs. The Scottish Government’s broader interpretation was seen as a threat to existing protections, such as those in lesbian-only spaces.
The Court also clarified that trans individuals remain protected under the gender reassignment characteristic in the Equality Act, with further protection available through association, perception, and indirect discrimination claims under the Act.
