What Supreme Court’s gender ruling means for workplaces, sports, others

A landmark Supreme Court ruling confirming the legal definition of a “woman” means trans women cannot use single-sex female toilets, changing rooms or compete in women’s sports, the head of the Britain’s equalities watchdog has said.

Speaking to the BBC, Equality and Human Rights Commission chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said the judgment – which saw five senior judges decide unanimously that the definition of a woman and sex in the 2010 Equality Act relates to “a biological woman and biological sex” – was “enormously consequential” and brought clarity.

She said the ruling was a “victory for common sense”, but only “if you recognise that trans people exist”.

“It’s not a victory for an increase in unpleasant actions against trans people. We will not tolerate that. We stand here to defend trans people as much as we do anyone else,” she said.

Wednesday’s judgment came after a legal challenge brought by gender critical campaigners For Women Scotland (FWS), who criticised including trans women in the definition of “woman” in Scottish legislation.

UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge read out the summary of their decision stipulating that the Scottish government was incorrect in classifying trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) – a legal document that affirms an individual’s affirmed gender – as women.

The latest decision in the long-running legal dispute will have wide-ranging implications for trans women, cis women and members of the LGBT+ community throughout the country.

Following the ruling in the Supreme Court that the term ‘woman’ refers to ‘biological women’, womens’ rights campaigners Susan Smith (in green) and Marion Calder, both directors of ‘For Women Scotland’ celebrate the judgement outside the court, on 16th April 2025, in London, England. Lord Hodge of the Supreme Court ruled,

FWS director Trina Budge said the ruling “clarifies women’s rights” and we now “know that when we see women-only spaces it means exactly what it says – no men”.

However, trans rights campaigners have declared the decision as “incredibly worrying” for the trans community, and say they may now face exclusion from some single sex spaces and that it paves the way for discrimination and transphobia.

In light of the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said the “efficacy” of GRCs will be re-examined.

How might this affect the trans community?

The legal action was initially brought by FWS in 2022 after judges in Edinburgh ruled trans women with a GRC could sit on public boards in posts reserved solely for women.

Scotland’s first minister John Swinney said the government accepts the judgment and will now engage on the “implications of the ruling”.

But it is set to have far-wider implications for everyday single-sex services like refuges, prisons, toilets and hospital wards.

The 88-page legal decision ruled that trans women, even those with a GRC, can be excluded from single-sex spaces – if “proportionate” to do so.

“Single-sex services like changing rooms must be based on biological sex,” Baroness Falkner told the BBC.

“If a male person is allowed to use a women-only service or facility, it isn’t any longer single-sex, then it becomes a mixed-sex space.”

Trans activists say that there has always been an exemption that enables some people to be excluded from certain spaces, often in religious areas and women’s refuges.

The judgment itself gives examples of places where such exclusions may take place, such as within rape or domestic violence counselling, refuges, rape crisis centres, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms.

A UK government spokesperson emphasised this point, saying: “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.”

Baroness Falkner said there is no law that forces organisations and service providers to provide a single-sex space, adding: “And there is no law against them providing a third space, an additional space, such as unisex toilets for example, or changing rooms.”

She suggested trans rights groups “should be using their powers of advocacy to ask for those third spaces”.

‘Gender-affected’ sports

The issue of trans women in sports in particular has made headlines in recent years, with sports such as athletics and cycling barring trans women from women’s events.

The English FA just days ago allowed trans women to continue to compete in women’s football in England provided they meet stricter eligibility criteria, following protests in November.

Asked if it was the case that trans women now cannot take part in women’s sport, Baroness Falkner told the BBC: “Yes, it is.”

Monaco, Monte Carlo – December 1, 2016: IAAF Press Conference after the IAAF Council Meeting with President Sebastian Coe.

The judgment confirms that a person may be excluded from participating as a competitor in a “gender-affected sport” if that was “necessary to secure fair competition or the safety of competitors”.

A “gender-affected sport”, defined by the judges, is one where “the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport”.

How this wording will be interpreted by various sporting bodies remains to be seen.

NHS will ‘have to change’ policy after ruling

Baroness Falkner said the NHS will “have to change” its 2019 policy on single-sex hospital wards. This states trans people “should be accommodated according to their presentation”.

She said the ruling means there is now “no confusion” and the NHS “can start to implement the new legal reasoning and produce their exceptions forthwith”.

Just hours after the verdict was announced, a Scottish health board involved in an ongoing employment tribunal regarding a transgender doctor said they would consider its “implications”.

Sandie Peggie, a nurse at Queen Margaret Hospital in Dunfermline is taking Fife Hospital Board to tribunal regarding Dr Beth Upton, a trans doctor, being permitted to use a female changing room while transitioning. (Getty Images) (Andrew Milligan – PA Images via Getty Images)

Nurse Sandie Peggie took the Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton to tribunal after being suspended from her work when she refused to share a changing room with Dr Upton, a trans woman.

The tribunal is expected to resume in the summer after evidence was heard earlier this year – but the Supreme Court judgment could now impact the outcome of that case.

‘The future is not clear’

With the judge’s decision still being assessed by invested observers, much of the immediate implications could be “symbolic”, according to some trans rights activists.

Jane Fae, a director of TransActual, an organisation that works to defend the rights of trans people, told Yahoo News after the ruling: “The immediate impact is that the ruling is symbolic, and many feel like they have been told they should not exist. But hypothetically legal action could follow.

“It is not clear what the consequences will be. We suspect there will be lots of misinformation and uninformed people may create exclusions in public spaces where there does not need to be any.”

LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall chief executive Simon Blake said there was “deep concern at the widespread implications” of the ruling.

Conversely, chief executive of the LGB Alliance charity Kate Barker said the ruling “marks a watershed for women” and allows lesbians to create social groups without trans women.

What could this mean for employers?

As legal minds pick over the landmark decision, some have indicated it will give greater clarity for employers on issues surrounding single-sex spaces.

The ruling states that trans women can be excluded from single-sex spaces if the justification is “reasonable and proportionate”.

Employment solicitors have said trans employees may be asked to use disabled toilets at work.

“Lots of businesses are going to have to redraft policies around same-sex toilets,” said Peter Byrne, head of employment law at Slater and Gordon. While previously an employee might have been asked which toilet they felt comfortable using, Byrne said “that option is probably going to disappear”.

“My personal view is, in reality, you’re going to end up asking them to use disabled toilets.”

In September 2024, the Cabinet Office published data showing an increase in trans discrimination at work. The figures showed 21% of transgender and non-binary officials said they were discriminated against at work in 2023, compared to 18% in 2022.

At large, recorded hate crimes against transgender people in England and Wales rose 11% to 4,732 offences in the last year, according to Home Office figures.

Pepper warned employers they may now need to consider extra training to ensure that no new claims are brought under the Equality Act.

What could happen next?

The ruling has confirmed that in the Equality Act 2010 the words ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex, but also that transgender people are still protected under the Act.

During the reading of the verdict, Lord Hodge stressed that the act gives transgender people protection from “direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender”.

Pepper argues that the act “urgently needs to be updated to ensure that transgender individuals don’t lose any of the protections they currently have from discrimination and prevent potential inequality”.

Baroness Falkner said she thinks the “next stage of litigation” is likely to involve “tests as to the efficacy of the GRC, and or other areas”.

Asked if GRCs have now been rendered worthless, she said: “We don’t believe they are. We think they’re quite important.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is expecting to lay an updated statutory code of practice before Parliament by the summer. It has said it is working “at pace to incorporate the implications of this judgment” into the code of practice that helps public bodies meet their duties under the Equality Act.

There may yet be a further appeal to come from some who believe the Supreme Court ruling may contradict another law. The Gender Recognition Act was passed in 2004 and allows adults in the UK who have gender dysphoria to change their legal sex, via a gender recognition certificate. Since it was passed, 8,464 people in the UK have done so.

But trans activists believe the Supreme Court ruling could contradict the 2004 act, which was passed after the UK lost in Goodwin & I v United Kingdom at the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and thereby required the UK to comply with European law.

“Some lawyers who have contacted me believe that this could effectively overturn the Gender Recognition Act,” said fae. “This could impact both trans women and trans men.

“If the judges say that the GRC does not matter, what is the point of it? This opens up a lot of further legal issues.”

There is no higher court than the Supreme Court in the UK, so any additional appeals will have to be heard at the European Court of Human Rights.

Jolyon Maugham, founder of The Good Law Project, a non-profit organisation that campaigns on a range human rights issues said this was already being looked at. “I don’t know if there is a case to be brought before the European Court of Human Rights – but we have already asked the question of a KC,” he said. “And, yes, if there is a decent case for a trans person to bring, we will help them bring it.”

(AOL)