UK Supreme Court Ruling on ‘Sex’ in Equality Act Raises Questions About Inclusion — What Employers Need to Know
On April 16, 2025, the UK Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, ruling that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, the words "woman" and "man" refer to biological sex. While this ruling provides legal clarity on one aspect of the Act, it also reignites wider debates around inclusion, legal recognition, and the lived experiences of transgender and non-binary people.
Background to the Case
The case was brought against the Scottish Government’s Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which aimed to improve female representation on public boards. The Scottish Government’s definition of "woman" included trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The advocacy group For Women Scotland challenged this, arguing that this conflated sex and gender reassignment — two distinct protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
What the Supreme Court Ruled
The Court concluded that "woman" in the Equality Act must be interpreted as meaning biological sex. Including trans women with a GRC within the legal definition of “woman,” they said, would blur the line between the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment — which Parliament had kept separate in the Act.
The Wider Impact
For employers and service providers, this ruling offers clarity: when the law refers to "woman" or "man" in provisions relating to sex-based rights (such as single-sex spaces or positive action initiatives), it refers to biological sex. However, it’s vital to remember that transgender people are still fully protected under the characteristic of "gender reassignment" in the Equality Act — and unlawful discrimination or harassment based on someone’s transition or gender identity remains illegal.
Non-binary people, while not explicitly named in the Act, have also been covered under this protection in various employment tribunal decisions, particularly where they are transitioning or are perceived to be.
What’s the Concern?
While this ruling may seem logical from a legal interpretation standpoint — keeping definitions internally consistent within the Act — many people and equality advocates are deeply disappointed by the decision. Critics argue it risks reinforcing exclusionary practices, particularly in areas like healthcare, education, and public services, where policy decisions could now legally exclude trans women from spaces previously inclusive.
This decision could also contribute to a wider narrative of marginalisation, even if unintentionally. Legal definitions shape social policies, and without careful implementation, there's a risk that this ruling is used to justify regressive or discriminatory behaviours, despite the law's continued protections.
What Employers Should Do Now
Review Your Policies: Ensure that your policies referencing “sex” or “gender” are clear and consistent with both the ruling and the ongoing protection against discrimination based on gender reassignment.
Stay Inclusive: Language in handbooks, signage, and communications should be inclusive and respectful, even as legal definitions may become more rigid.
Train Managers: Ensure your leadership understands the distinction between sex-based rights and gender identity protections, and is equipped to handle issues with sensitivity and legality.
Seek Legal Advice Where Necessary: Especially if you're offering services that are sex-specific, such as care, education, or healthcare.
Final Thoughts:
This ruling is a reminder of the complexity in balancing legal interpretation with real-world human experience. While it may bring clarity for compliance purposes, it also places renewed responsibility on employers, policymakers, and communities to create safe and inclusive environments for everyone — regardless of where the legal lines are drawn.
Oxford People Solutions is here to help you review your policies and maintain inclusive, compliant practices that support both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Your Questions answered
1. Does this decision affect the wider UK or just Scotland?
Yes, it affects the whole UK.
While the case originated in Scotland and challenged a Scottish law (The Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018), it was ruled on by the UK Supreme Court. That means the decision sets a binding legal precedent for all parts of the UK — including England, Wales, and Northern Ireland — in terms of how the Equality Act 2010 should be interpreted.
The key part is that the Equality Act is a UK-wide law, and the ruling interprets how its terms should be applied. So the interpretation of "woman" and "man" as referring to biological sex applies throughout the UK when referring to rights under the Equality Act.
2. How does this judgment affect trans men (those assigned female at birth who transition to male)?
Under this ruling, legal sex under the Equality Act remains distinct from gender identity. So the classification of a trans man (AFAB – assigned female at birth) depends on whether they have obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
With a GRC: They are legally recognised as male, and in contexts where the law refers to legal sex (e.g., some pension rules), they are treated as such.
Under the Equality Act, however, this ruling reaffirms that the protected characteristic of "sex" means biological sex. So in sex-based provisions (e.g., single-sex spaces), the law would treat a trans man as female, unless specific circumstances or exceptions apply.
That creates a conflict between identity and biology in law — and it’s one of the concerns raised by trans rights advocates about this ruling.
3. Does the Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) exist in England or just in Scotland?
It exists across the UK, including England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (a UK-wide law) allows eligible individuals to apply for a GRC, which changes their legal sex on birth certificates and other official documents.
Scotland attempted to create its own, more streamlined version of gender recognition through the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which was blocked by the UK Government in 2023 — so the current system is still UK-wide and requires:
A medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria
Living in the “acquired gender” for at least 2 years
Approval by a Gender Recognition Panel
This process applies regardless of which UK nation you live in.
