For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers

Judicial review of devolved legislation

In 2018, Scotland passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act (Scotland) 2018, a law that requires public authorities with boards to encourage participation by women. The legislation as assented contained a definition of "woman" that:^[6]

includes a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010) if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female.

In 2021, the Outer House of the Court of Session of Scotland heard a judicial review application brought by the gender-critical advocacy group For Women Scotland (FWS).^[7][8] The decision was in favour of the Scottish Ministers.^[9] In February 2022, following an appeal by FWS, the ruling was overturned by the Inner House of the Court of Session.^[10][11]

As a result of this ruling, the statutory guidance to the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 was published on 19 April 2022 that stated that "woman" was simply to be defined as per the Equality Act 2010. However, the guidance also stated that per the Gender Recognition Act 2004, people in possession of a full GRC were to be recognised by their "acquired gender".^[2][12]

Subsequent judicial review of statutory guidance

In July 2022, FWS petitioned for judicial review of the statutory guidance. In December 2022, Lady Haldane ruled in favour of the Scottish Ministers, stating that the updated statutory guidance was lawful; the definition of "sex" per the Equality Act 2010 was "not limited to biological or birth sex"; and the definition "includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex".^[13][14]

In October 2023, FWS appealed the decision, arguing that the ruling conflated sex and gender in a manner that was "unworkable and impractical". On 1 November 2023, the Inner House dismissed the appeal.^[2][3] Lady Dorrian held that the legal definition of a person's sex was that of their "acquired gender" if they received a GRC.^[15]

Hearing

Oral arguments were heard at the Supreme Court from 26 to 27 November 2024. The Supreme Court allowed two intervenors to make written and oral submissions (Sex Matters and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)) and another two intervenors to make written submissions only (Amnesty International and a group of three campaigning organisations comprising the LGB Alliance, The Lesbian Project, and Scottish Lesbians).^[16][17] An application for intervention by two transgender legal experts — Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle — made with the support of the Good Law Project was rejected, which resulted in no trans parties being permitted to intervene.^[18][19]

For Women Scotland argued that "sex" in the Equality Act always referenced "biological sex". Sex Matters' intervention largely agreed, noting that the Equality Act's "gender reassignment" definition did not relate to biological sex but was sui generis.^[b] The campaigning group submitted on the potential effects of a trans-inclusive definition on the rights of lesbians under the Equality Act, also making arguments under the European Convention of Human Rights.^[16][c]

The Scottish Government argued that "woman" in the Equality Act includes a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the "acquired gender" of female as defined under the GRA 2004. The EHRC agreed with this position and argued that, although this interpretation would result in practical issues under the EA 2010, these issues were for Parliament to resolve.^[d] Amnesty International made submissions on human rights principles.^[16][e]

Immediate aftermath

After the decision was issued by the Supreme Court, gender-critical activists celebrated with champagne outside the court building. Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, celebrated the decision as affirming "common sense" and that "women are protected by their biological sex".^[28][29] The Scottish government, speaking with BBC News, responded to its loss by saying that it had "acted in good faith" in interpreting the acts, following the guidance that had previously been issued by the EHRC.^[30][31]

Sex Matters stated that the decision meant that gender self-identification was "dead" and argued for the exclusion of trans persons who present as their identified gender from both male and female bathrooms.^[29][32] The LGB Alliance regarded the decision as protecting gay and lesbian rights by allowing gay and lesbian associations to exclude trans persons.^[33][34]

Amnesty International UK stated that the decision implied "potentially concerning consequences for trans people", although it was at the time too early to determine what those effects were. The NGO also emphasised the Supreme Court's affirmation that trans people should not be harassed or discriminated against per the Equality Act.^[21]

Advocacy and community groups

The decision was widely condemned by numerous LGBTQ organisations and activists, including Stonewall,^[31] TransActual,^[35] Victoria McCloud,^[36][37] and the LGBT Consortium.^[38] The decision was also criticised by Human Rights Watch and performing arts union Equity.^[39][40]

Over the Easter long weekend of 18–20 April, protests against the ruling were held in towns and cities throughout the UK.^[41] Thousands gathered for a rally at London's Parliament Square on 19 April, organised by a group of 24 pro-LGBTQ groups.^[42] Seven statues were vandalised during the London protests, including the statue of former Union of South Africa prime minister Jan Smuts (which was spray painted with the message "Trans rights are human rights"), and the statue of women's suffrage activist Millicent Fawcett (which had ""Fag rights" written onto the banner it was holding).^[43][44]

Birmingham Pride, Brighton Pride, London Pride, Manchester Pride, and Pride Glasgow subsequently announced that they would prohibit political parties from sending official representatives to their events, in "unequivocal solidarity" with the trans community.^[45][46]

Politicians and officials

Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer "welcomed" the judgement for bringing "clarity" interpreting the decision as making "absolutely clear" that "a woman is an adult female".^[47][48] Labour party leaders, including Minister for Women and Equalities Bridget Phillipson, interpreted the decision as providing support for the rule that trans people should not be allowed to use single-sex spaces for their identified gender, including toilets, hospitals, shelters, and rape crisis centers as examples.^[49][50][51] At the same time, LGBT+ Labour stated they were "deeply disappointed" by the judgement and its potential harmful effects on trans persons and transphobia.^[52]

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch considered it a "victory" for women who had been targeted for "stating the obvious" and that "the era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end."^[20][53]

In Scotland, Maggie Chapman, Scottish Greens Member of the Scottish Parliament and deputy convenor of the parliamentary Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, condemned the judgement, stating that the Supreme Court had engaged in "bigotry, prejudice and hatred". Her comments were condemned by Akua Reindorf KC, a Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission;^[54] the Faculty of Advocates, which described them as failing to "respect the rule of law"; and a number of senior lawyers, including King's Counsel.^[55] Joanna Cherry called for Chapman to resign,^[54] whilst a motion brought by Conservative MSP Tess White to have Chapman removed from her Committee position over the issue was unsuccessful.^[56]

The Welsh Government released a statement accepting the decision of the Supreme Court, noting that the judgement did not remove protection from trans people, and reaffirming an ongoing commitment to equality and inclusion.^[57]

Following the ruling, a spokesperson for the Republic of Ireland's Equality Minister, Norma Foley stated that the ruling would not impact trans people in Ireland.^[58]

Celebrities

J. K. Rowling, who had donated £70,000 to For Women Scotland in support of the case, made a series of posts on Twitter celebrating 16 April as "TERF VE Day".^[59] Many other celebrities, however, publicly displayed the slogan "Protect the Dolls" in the immediate aftermath of the decision, the slogan being worn on clothing by a wide array of actors, models, musicians, and artists in support of the rights of trans women.^{[60][61][62][63]}

On 23 April 2025, an open letter was addressed to the UK arts and culture sector, calling for it to "meet this moment with bravery and solidarity", amid the ruling and the growing number of hate crimes targeting the trans community. The letter was signed by over 1,300 writers across the British literature and screenwriting industries, including Michaela Coel, Russell T Davies, and Alice Oseman.^[64]

International

ILGA-Europe, which ranks countries based on their LGBTQ rights protections, dropped the United Kingdom to 22nd in Europe — the lowest position for the UK since the rankings started in 2009. Between 2011 and 2015 it had been ranked at the top of the list. All points related to legal gender recognition were removed in response to the ruling and EHRC guidance. ILGA stated: "It is, in fact, impossible for a trans person to be fully legally recognised in their gender identity within the legal framework created by the judgment and interim update."^[65]

Australia's sex discrimination commissioner Anna Cody condemned the ruling.^[66]

Litigation

On 16 May, the Good Law Project sent a letter before action to the EHRC, stating their guidance "authorises and approves unlawful discrimination" and they would "be challenging that guidance on the basis that it is irrational and/or wrong in law". They further stated that if the EHRC interpretation was correct, it would place the UK in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.^[74][75] The case was heard at the High Court in November 2025, with advocacy group Sex Matters allowed to present an intervention. The judgement was deferred to a later date.^[76]

Impact

On 29 June 2025, Keir Starmer stated that he "welcomed the ruling and everything else flows from that", adding that "all guidance of whatever kind needs to be consistent with the ruling and we need to get to that position as soon as possible".^[77] British Transport Police confirmed that the strip-search policy would be so that trans women in custody who required to be strip searched would have this done by male officers.^[78][79] Both the House of Commons and Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body announced that unisex toilet facilities in Westminster and Holyrood would only be allowed to persons of the corresponding biological sex, with trans people also being able to use gender-neutral and accessible toilets.^[80][81] In December 2025, the Labour Party barred trans women from taking part in the formal proceedings of their women's conference in 2026.^[82][83]

Following the ruling and subsequent EHRC guidance, a number of sports clubs and bodies announced bans on transgender women playing in women's sports, including the Scottish Football Association banned transgender women from participating in women's football from the next season;^[84][85] The Football Association in England;^[86] England Netball;^[87] and the England and Wales Cricket Board.^[88] The Women's Institute and Girlguiding also announced that it could no longer allow trans women and girls to be members as a result of legal advice they received.^[89]

Criticism

The EHRC interim guidance was described by transgender campaigners as a "bigoted attempt to segregate trans people in public spaces", with campaign groups warning about forced outing and harmful effects on trans lives, and stating it could be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.^[90] The Green Party co-leaders issued a statement that the guidance was "ill-considered and impractical" and "could put trans people at risk of discrimination in the workplace, and is overly prescriptive in a way that seems to fly in the face of the tolerance that we value in this country". They stated "it doesn't seem right that a lesbian organisation or space that wants to include trans women should be prevented from doing so".^[90][91][92]

Ahead of the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia on 17 May, 23 Pride organisations in Scotland issued a joint statement that they were "deeply alarmed by the escalation in the demonisation of LGBTQIA+ people, particularly trans individuals, both at home and abroad", stating that the ruling and EHRC interim guidance are a "serious threat to the rights of trans people". They further criticised "the influence of the anti-LGBTQIA+ lobby in both the UK and Scottish Governments".^[93]

In June, an estimated 900 trans people and their supporters (including Kate Nash) demonstrated at Parliament in June, seeking to meet with MPs to advocate against anti-trans positions. According to Diva, the protest surpassed the number of demonstrators who protested against section 28 in the 1980s.^[94][95][96]

In late June, leading UK trans groups issued a joint letter to the Council of Europe's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to express their "grave concerns" over current UK trans rights policies, specifically criticising the EHRC and arguing they violated the European Convention on Human Rights.^[37][97] In July, TransLuscent requested that the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions investigate the EHRC, arguing its conduct following the ruling had been unlawful and in violation of the Paris Principles.^[98]

On 30 June 2025, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention issued a Red Flag Alert for the genocide of transgender and intersex people in the United Kingdom, noting similarities of the UK's policy to the 9th Pattern of Genocide. The institute believe that "the practical repercussions for trans and intersex individuals are clear and serious" and that: "If the guidance does become law, it would make transition impossible in the UK. Life as a transitioned person would become unbearable".^[99][100]

Costs

On 27 May 2025 the Supreme Court confirmed that the Scottish Government would be required to pay For Women Scotland's costs and expenses.^[104] In February 2026 For Women Scotland received £392,500 as full and final settlement.^[105]

For Women Scotland 3

In 2026, For Women Scotland won a separate victory over The Scottish Ministers, in the Court of Session, a case referred to as For Women Scotland 3 (the Court of Session case in For Women Scotland being FWS 1, and the Supreme Court judgment being FWS 2). This found that Scottish prison policy, which allowed transgender prisoners to be in the prison of their preferred gender was unlawful, and that sex segregation in prisons must only be on the basis of biological sex, building on the judgment in FWS 2.^[106] https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/pnbpzgex/2026csoh59-petition-of-for-women-scotland-for-judicial-review.pdf