Anti-trans rights activists have won their Supreme Court challenge over the definition of a woman, which could affect the lives of trans women across the UK.
Writing on the BlueSky social media platform, the Good Law Project said: “[The court] didn’t hear from a single trans person. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent and erases trans women from protections. It puts trans rights back 20 years. We won’t stop fighting for trans rights.”
Backed financially by JK Rowling, who’s now known for spouting controversial posts on social media about the trans community, the gender critical campaign group For Women Scotland said the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female.
Five judges from the UK supreme court agreed – ruling that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 does not include trans women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).
This decision means trans women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.
It could have far wider ramifications by leading to much greater restrictions on the rights of trans women to use services and spaces reserved for women, and spark calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.
Jolyon Maugham, Founder and Director of Good Law Project, wrote on BlueSky: “Having excluded all trans people from proceedings before it, the Supreme Court decides in favour of For Some Women Scotland.
The Supreme Court sided with FWS.
But it didn’t hear from a single trans person.
This ruling sets a dangerous precedent and erases trans women from protections. It puts trans rights back 20 years.We won’t stop fighting for trans rights ️⚧️
— Good Law Project (@goodlawproject.bsky.social) 16 April 2025 at 10:19
“I’m genuinely stunned. I spoke to KCs at three leading sets of chambers with deep specialisations in equalities law. Each of them told me that For Women Scotland’s position was not even arguable.
“The Supreme Court accepted the submissions of the GC [gender critical] orgs before it that bringing trans people with a GRC [gender recognition certificate] within the definition of man or women would create absurdities. But it refused to hear from anyone pointing out the absurdities of excluding them – that’s why trans representation matters.
“I’m reading the judgment, and I have some familiarity with what it is like to be trans having done advocacy for getting on for a decade, but *I* am struggling to analyse what it means for trans people in their real lives. That’s, again, why trans representation matters.
“For example, the Supreme Court is saying that a trans woman gets protection as a woman if she ‘passes’. Whether that’s right or wrong ethically it’s totally at odds with the Supreme Court’s blithe assertion that its decision ‘is neither disadvantageous to nor removes protections from trans people’.
“It’s important to understand the mindset of the judiciary.
“There will be a minority who are positively transphobic. There will also be some who are aware of their inability to analyse trans lives without evidence from trans people…”
Trans people in the UK are protected by the Equality Act 2010 under the category of gender reassignment.
