Supreme Court decision on definition of 'woman' has immediate real-world consequences

16 April 2025, 11:49 | Updated: 16 April 2025, 17:17

For years there has been a toxic, emotion-driven debate over gender and sex in this country. Today came clarity.

This was the legal crescendo in a saga that has rolled through the courts for more than half a decade.

It impacts half of the population in England, Scotland and Wales.

Five judges at the highest civil court in the land were unanimous: the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

It essentially means holders of gender recognition certificates are not women in the eyes of the law.

Follow live: Judges rule on definition of 'woman'

Without getting bogged down in the legal technicalities, this whole case centred on two pieces of Westminster legitimation, meaning the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

Those with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) have lived for the last 20 years on the basis that the document they possess changes their sex for "all purposes".

Later anti-discrimination laws, the Equality Act, stated trans people could be excluded from women-only spaces in some circumstances.

Women's rights campaigners took the case to court to seek clarity after the Scottish government tried to include trans women in quotas for gender balance on public sector boards.

This definitive decision today in London has immediate real-world consequences.

Judges were clear this wasn't a victory for either side, as trans people will still be protected against discrimination.

But trans leaders say this calls into question their very identity - and to say they are hugely disappointed is an understatement.

One trans woman told me she was "gutted" and that this was an "attack" on her rights.

Campaign group For Women Scotland gathered in Edinburgh to watch a live stream of the proceedings and claimed victory. There were tears and cheers as they watched the judges deliver their judgment.

They say this gives absolute clarity about who can enter single-sex spaces like sports clubs, hospital wards and prisons across Britain.

Sir Keir Starmer's government issued a statement saying this brings "confidence" and that they remain fully in favour of single-sex spaces.

John Swinney, Scotland's first minister, had a more muted reaction, simply saying his government "accepts" the ruling.

In 2022, the SNP government under Nicola Sturgeon passed laws making it easier for people to change their gender. It was ultimately blocked by the UK government and has been sitting on a shelf getting dusty ever since.

Since coming to power a year ago, Mr Swinney has tried to distance himself from the gender politics of the past few years given how much it bogged down his predecessors.

There was an excruciating exchange with journalists last year when he was asked whether a man can get pregnant. He delivered a blunt "no" in response despite his lawyers arguing almost the opposite in court.

There was the row over the double rapist being housed in a women's prison and an employment tribunal is currently hearing the case of the nurse who complained about getting changed in front of a transgender doctor.

With a Holyrood election looming next year, it is completely conceivable that any suggestion of resurrecting Scotland's controversial gender reforms is over in light of today's court decision.

Mr Swinney won't be taking questions today, I'm told, but it will be top of the list for his next appearance.

(c) Sky News 2025: Supreme Court decision on definition of 'woman' has immediate real-world consequences