EDINBURGH-BASED trans rights charity Scottish Trans has urged people "not to panic" after a ruling that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
Campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) brought a series of challenges – including to the UK’s highest court – over the definition of “woman” in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards.
The dispute centres on whether someone with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the UK 2010 Equality Act.
In a ruling on Wednesday, justices at the UK’s highest court unanimously ruled in FWS’s favour.
The charity wrote on social media platform Bluesky: "FWS have won their case against the Scottish Government. We will be reading the judgement as quickly as possible so we can properly understand what the Court has decided today.
"We'd urge people not to panic - there will be lots of commentary coming out quickly that is likely to deliberately overstate the impact that this decision is going to have on all trans people's lives. We'll say more as soon as we're able to.
"Please look out for yourselves and each other today."
Vic Valentine, manager of the charity, said: “We are really shocked by today’s Supreme Court decision – which reverses twenty years of understanding on how the law recognises trans men and women with Gender Recognition Certificates.
"The judgement seems to have totally missed what matters to trans people – that we are able to live our lives, and be recognised, in line with who we truly are.
"Trans people need to be able to recover on hospital wards, use toilets, go swimming and access services just like anyone else. This judgement seems to suggest that there will be times where trans people can be excluded from both men’s and women’s spaces and services. It is hard to understand where we would then be expected to go - or how this decision is compatible with a society that is fair and equal for everybody.
"We will continue working for a world in which trans people can get on with our lives with privacy, dignity and safety. That is something that we all deserve.”
Elsewhere, Amnesty warned of potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but stressed that the court did conclude that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment.
“The outcome of today’s judgment is clearly disappointing. It is a long and complex judgment, and we will take time to analyse its full implications, " Amnesty International UK chief executive Sacha Deshmukh said.
“There are potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment.
“The ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, as well as other provisions under the Equality Act.
"Amnesty intervened in this case to remind the court that legal gender recognition is essential for trans people to enjoy the full spectrum of rights each of us is entitled to, including safety, health and family life.
“The Supreme Court itself today made clear that the vilification of a marginalised minority group is absolutely wrong. All public authorities in the UK need to unequivocally enforce protections for trans people against discrimination and harassment.”
Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (ECHR), also commented on the ruling, adding that a more detailed statement would be released once the Commission had time to consider its implications in full.
Falkner said: “We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the Court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations."
The Supreme Court justices said that using a “certificated” interpretation of sex would create “an odd inequality of status” between trans people who have a gender reassignment certificate and trans people who do not, with “no obvious means of distinguishing between the two groups”.
Trans activist and National columnist Ellie Gomersall said the ruling had ended "20 years of understanding" that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate are able to be "recognised legally as our true genders".
Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman also described the it as "a deeply concerning ruling for human rights" and "a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society".
