What has the supreme court been asked to rule on?
Libby Brooks
The narrow point of law on which the court has been asked to rule is who counts as a woman under the UK’s Equality Act, and whether that legal definition includes transgender women possessing a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
Although the court battle began in Scotland, the ruling, expected on Wednesday, could have significant implications for how single-sex spaces and services are run across England, Scotland and Wales and galvanise calls to amend the 2010 act.
The issue has challenged politicians and policymakers in recent years as concerns about the clash between women’s rights and trans rights have grown; it was used as a political weapon towards the end of the previous Tory government.
Key events
A live stream of today’s UK supreme court session, which will begin shortly, has been added to the top of this blog. You may have to refresh the page to see it.
Libby Brooks
Wednesday’s judgment concludes court action by For Women Scotland (FWS) over Holyrood’s Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which was aimed at improving gender balance.
An amendment to the SNP government’s bill, brought by a Scottish Labour MSP, expanded the scope of the legislation to include all trans women, whether or not they had applied for a GRC.
FWS launched a judicial review, arguing that Holyrood had gone beyond its competence by using such a wide definition of “woman” and the inner court of session in Edinburgh agreed.
Scottish ministers revised the statutory guidance, which stated the new law would follow the Equality Act by including transgender women who had a GRC within the definition of “woman”.
FWS launched another judicial review, which was dismissed, and after further appeals brought the case to the supreme court. Its crowdfunder has so far raised £230,000, including £70,000 donated by the Harry Potter author and activist JK Rowling.
Other prominent campaigners, including Sex Matters, which was founded by Maya Forstater after she won an employment tribunal that found she had been unfairly discriminated against because of her gender-critical beliefs, were granted leave to intervene in the case.
No trans people were represented during the two days of legal argument last November. The retired judge Victoria McCloud, who changed her legal sex more than two decades ago, was refused permission to be heard in the case.
She said:
Not permitting trans people to be heard was one of the boldest decisions made by this court. I am confident an appeal would be pursued at an international level if the appeal was allowed. I doubt that will be necessary.
What has the supreme court been asked to rule on?
Libby Brooks
The narrow point of law on which the court has been asked to rule is who counts as a woman under the UK’s Equality Act, and whether that legal definition includes transgender women possessing a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
Although the court battle began in Scotland, the ruling, expected on Wednesday, could have significant implications for how single-sex spaces and services are run across England, Scotland and Wales and galvanise calls to amend the 2010 act.
The issue has challenged politicians and policymakers in recent years as concerns about the clash between women’s rights and trans rights have grown; it was used as a political weapon towards the end of the previous Tory government.
What arguments were put to the supreme court?
Libby Brooks
Aidan O’Neill KC told the court that For Women Scotland (FWS) was arguing that “in the Equality Act sex just means sex, as that word [is] used in ordinary, everyday language … by ordinary people”.
He argued that Scottish ministers’ position that the Equality Act created a “new legal category of ‘certificated sex’” – determined by what it said on a birth certificate, and whether that was later altered by a gender recognition certificate (GRC) – should be rejected.
Ruth Crawford KC, responding on behalf of Scottish ministers, argued that transgender people had “a fundamental right” to be recognised in their legally acquired gender. She said the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was clear that a GRC changed sex “for all purposes” and someone with a GRC was entitled to legal protections “just as much as others enjoy those protections who are recorded as a woman at birth”.
What could happen?
Severin Carrell
If the UK supreme court rules in favour of the Scottish government, it may recommend that the Equality Act is clarified to set out the rights of trans women.
If it rules in favour of For Women Scotland (FWS), there will be substantial pressure on the UK government to amend the act to exclude trans women from women-only spaces, and the Scottish government will need to reverse its policies on public boards.
UK supreme court to rule on the legal definition of a woman
Severin Carrell
Equalities campaigners in the UK are braced for a supreme court ruling that could have a significant impact on the rights of transgender people to use single-sex services.
Five judges on the UK supreme court will rule on Wednesday morning whether or not the definition of woman in the Equality Act 2010 includes transgender women with gender recognition certificates (GRC).
The court’s decision is expected to lead to calls for the act to be rewritten, and could have a profound effect on the rights of transgender women to take places on public boards reserved for women, and to use spaces and services intended for women.
The case against the Scottish government was brought by the gender critical campaign group For Women Scotland after judges in Edinburgh ruled that ministers were right to say that trans women with a GRC could sit on public boards in posts reserved for women.
FWS, which is partly funded by the writer JK Rowling and has support from the campaign group Sex Matters, argues that the Equality Act’s definition of woman is limited only to people born biologically female.
They argue that a very clear definition by the court on what a woman is would also help clear up an ambiguity about who qualifies to use women’s services. They say people who self-identify as trans but do not have a gender recognition certificate are being allowed to use women-only services and spaces.
The Scottish government has defended its decision. Backed by trans rights advocates and lawyers it has told the court that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 makes clear that a gender recognition certificate changes sex “for all purposes”.
The government’s lawyers argue that means someone with that certificate is entitled to legal protections “just as much as others enjoy those protections who are recorded as a woman at birth”.
