How the UK Legally Defined Women and Removed Transgender People from the Classification

The UK recently ruled that the legal definition of woman excludes transgender women, in a sensitive case with significant legal and social implications, ending a years-long legal battle between the Scottish government and women's rights groups.

The ruling marks a turning point in the ongoing debate over gender identity and the rights of transgender people, particularly as this decision will affect half the population of England, Scotland, and Wales.

However, opinions were divided regarding it, with some viewing it as a serious setback for inclusive feminism and a threat to women's rights, and others seeing it as a victory for practical laws and the protection of fundamental women's rights.

Others believe that the future of this ruling will depend on how it is implemented in practice, ensuring that it is not used as a pretext for infringing on freedoms or discrimination.

Turning Point

In a highly controversial case, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the definition of woman in the Equality Act is limited to those born biologically female. 

This means that transgender people, even those with official gender recognition certificates (GRC), should not be considered female.

In the ruling issued on April 16, the five-judge panel of the Supreme Court stated that the unanimous decision of the court was that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and a biological sex.

Deputy Chief Justice Patrick Hodge said: “We advise against viewing the ruling as a victory for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another.”

A Labour government spokesperson welcomed the decision, stating that the Supreme Court had clarified the legal position, particularly regarding single-sex spaces, such as hospitals, shelters, and sports clubs, which would remain legally protected.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch praised the decision, saying: “Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in law either.”

Scottish First Minister John Swinney's reaction was more muted, simply stating that his government accepted the ruling.

Scottish Tories leader Russell Findlay called the Supreme Court decision a victory for women across the UK, stressing the new definition is an abject humiliation for the Scottish National Party (SNP).

The Scottish Greens described the Supreme Court ruling as deeply concerning human rights.

The party said it would continue to stand with trans people and resist the culture war waged against them.

The Telegraph reported that the ruling represents a victory for campaigns critical of transgender rights, campaigns supported by some politicians and prominent figures in British society.

Among the most prominent figures who have strongly criticized transgender rights is the well-known author J.K. Rowling, author of the famous Harry Potter series, who lives in Scotland.

The group ‘For Women Scotland’ welcomed the ruling, considering it to strengthen the clarity of laws regarding gender-based rights and impact single-sex facilities such as hospitals and prisons.

On the other hand, transgender rights groups and activists expressed concern that this decision could set a legal precedent that could later be used to discriminate against transgender people even if they hold a GRC, particularly in employment and public services.

But the court sought to reassure them, with Judge Hodge stating that “a correct interpretation of the Equality Act, as referring to biological sex, does not disadvantage transgender people, whether or not they hold a GRC.”

“Transgender people are legally protected under the gender transition clause, which is a protected characteristic in its own right,” he added.

Legal Battle 

The legal dispute over this issue began in 2018 between the Scottish government, which is strongly committed to the rights of transgender people, and the group 'For Women Scotland'.

The group considered that granting transgender men equal rights to women in various aspects of life, including club changing rooms, bathrooms, sporting competitions, and hospitals, is a blatant assault on women's rights.

It argued that rights under the Equality Act should only apply on the basis of a person's biological sex.

It also challenged the Scottish government's guidance, which accompanied a 2018 law aimed at ensuring 50% representation of women on the boards of public bodies, arguing that the amendment exceeds the powers of Parliament.

The Scottish ministerial guidance stated that a transgender woman with a GRC is legally a woman.

In response, the Scottish government issued new guidance recognizing a woman as anyone with a GRC, a claim the organization again challenged.

After losing its legal battle in the Scottish courts, the group decided to appeal to the Supreme Court in London, which ruled in favor of the group last November. The decision was officially announced this week.

In 2022, the Scottish government, led by Nicola Sturgeon, passed laws making it easier for people to change their gender.

However, the UK government ultimately blocked these laws, and they have remained in disuse ever since.

In January 2023, Scottish authorities were forced to announce a moratorium on transferring any transgender prisoner with a history of violence against women to a women's prison, following two high-profile cases.

Since taking office a year ago, First Minister Swinney has attempted to distance himself from the gender policies of recent years, given how they hindered his predecessors.

Last year, there was a heated debate with journalists when Sweeney was asked whether a man could become pregnant, and he answered with a firm ‘no’, despite his lawyers arguing the opposite in court.

An employment tribunal is currently hearing the case of a nurse who complained about changing her clothes in front of a transgender doctor.

With Scotland's general election approaching next year, any suggestion of reviving controversial gender reforms in Scotland is likely dead in light of today's court ruling.

Gender Ideology

On the same issue, London-based Dr. Nour Hakeem explained to Al-Estiklal that “the latest ruling represents a sound legal step that comes after years of controversy in the UK over the definition of women.”

“Relying on biological sex as a legal standard is crucial because it preserves the coherence of social legislation and limits conceptual laxity that could undermine the foundations of the modern state,” she said.

She also noted that the ruling may anger transgender advocacy organizations, but it reflects a general European trend toward recalibrating gender concepts, achieving a balance between individual rights and protecting the social fabric.

Dr. Hakeem emphasized that “defending biological sex is not retrograde and bigoted, but rather an affirmation that justice is not built by ignoring biological reality, but rather by respecting nature and being fair to everyone.”

This debate between gender identity and biological sex comes within a broader global context, where many Western countries, led by the United States, are engaged in increasing legal battles over the rights of transgender people in education, sports, and military service.

From his first day in the White House after assuming office on January 20, US President Donald Trump announced his desire to stop the promotion of homosexual propaganda in many progressive and liberal circles.

He immediately issued an executive order requiring the federal government to recognize only two unchangeable genders (male and female).

He later signed another anti-transgender executive order, barring transgender women and girls from participating in women's sports.

The executive order also mandates that incarcerated transgender women be placed in men's prisons, revokes gender marker changes on passports and federal IDs, and prohibits the use of X as a gender marker.

Trump had previously ordered a ban on transgender Americans from serving in the military, opening the door to ongoing lawsuits.

These decisions, which affect more than 1.5 million transgender people in the United States, have drawn widespread criticism from transgender communities, representing a reversal of the progress made in recent years in support of their rights.

It is worth noting that in 2022, the US State Department allowed individuals to select a gender other than male and female on their passports without providing any medical documentation.