16/04/2025
The Supreme Court published their judgment on For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) this morning.
Contrary to what some social media commentary is saying, this was not about establishing a hierarchy of rights where one group is subordinate to another (actually, quite the opposite).
The question before the Court was all to do with legal interpretation: how to reconcile two statutes that appear to be in conflict with each other (the provision within the Gender Recognition Act 2004 that states a holder of a Gender Recognition Certificate has their acquired gender "for all purposes" and the Equality Act 2010, which differentiates between the characteristics of s*x and gender reassignment).
The Supreme Court decided that "interpreting 's*x' as certificated s*x would cut across the definitions of 'man' and 'woman' and thus the protected characteristic of s*x in an incoherent way".
This decision is particularly relevant to matters relating to single s*x spaces, in that "single s*x" has been clarified as meaning a specific *biological* s*x. I believe it will have knock-on ramifications for "single s*x" sports too.
The ramifications go further too, for example into s*x representation metrics. Let's say you have a goal to have a certain number of women in a particular position or role (i.e. no less than a certain percentage being women). In the opinion of the Supreme Court, appointing a transwoman with a GRC does would NOT count towards that goal.