Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Bel Priestly and other transgender influencers and advocates have vowed to defy the Supreme Court's gender ruling by ignoring any new restrictions on single-sex bathrooms that are introduced as a result.
The finding that the definition of a woman in equality law relies on biological sex implies that trans women holding a gender recognition certificate (GRC) may be excluded from single-sex spaces if such exclusion is considered 'proportionate.' Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), has characterized the ruling as 'enormously consequential' and has committed to taking action against organizations that fail to revise their policies accordingly.
However, it sparked an intense backlash from transgender influencers, who pledged to persist in utilizing single-sex restrooms. Meanwhile, Ella Morgan, a star from Married at First Sight, stated, 'I still myself as a woman, whether I am on paper or not'.
The 31-year-old asserted that trans people are now suffering the consequences of actions by individuals like rapist Isla Bryson.
'I hate to say this, but for the first time since I have had that title and role I actually do feel nervous and scared not only for myself but for the community because it's the unknown,' she told Good Morning Britain.
Meanwhile, trans influencers railed against the judgment on social media by posting videos of their horrified reactions, with one - Bel Priestly - telling her 1.4million followers that Britain was 'going backwards'.
@belpriestley I have no words we are truly going backwards #trans #proud
♬ What Was I Made For? (Epilogue) [Instrumental Version] - Mark Ronson & Andrew Wyatt
Trans influencers, including trans advocate Ben (@benj_99), slammed the ruling in furious social media posts.
@benj_99 The Supreme Court’s new ruling is an attack on trans people. All my trans sisters I stand with you forever and ALWAYS #fyp #foryoupage #transman #ftm #transrights
What did the Supreme Court rule?
The Supreme Court clarified that under the Equality Act 2010, the terms "woman" and "sex" specifically refer to biological women and biological sex.
Impact on Single-Sex Spaces:
Organizations, including hospitals, refuges, rape crisis centres, and facilities such as female-only hospital wards or changing rooms, may lawfully exclude transgender women—even those holding a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)—from single-sex spaces if it's deemed proportionate and justified.
The ruling aims to provide greater certainty for institutions operating single-sex services or spaces, ensuring clarity and legal protection.
Implications for Employers:
Employers now have clearer guidance on how to handle single-sex spaces within workplaces.
Excluding transgender women from spaces designated specifically for biological women is not automatically discrimination, as clarified by this ruling.
However, transgender individuals remain legally protected against discrimination or harassment under the Equality Act's provisions on gender reassignment.
Employers must still ensure inclusive workplaces; failure to do so can result in discrimination claims.
Effect on Competitive Sports:
While the ruling does not directly cover competitive sports, it reinforces the existing trend in many sports organizations to restrict participation based on biological sex.
This clarity is welcomed by sports authorities, providing further justification for restrictions on transgender women competing in female events.
Pregnancy and Maternity Leave:
The Supreme Court's ruling acknowledges that only biological women can become pregnant. As a result, a trans man (biological female who identifies as male) remains entitled to maternity leave protections.
Conversely, a trans woman (biological male) is not eligible for maternity leave under current protections.
Overall, the ruling significantly clarifies the legal definition of sex and gender in the UK, providing clear guidelines for institutions, employers, and individuals regarding single-sex spaces, workplace discrimination, and related issues.
The UK's Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that under the Equality Act 2010, the terms 'sex', 'man', and 'woman' must be understood to refer to biological sex. The court rejected alternative interpretations, describing them as incoherent and impractical.
Delivering the unanimous judgment, Lord Hodge emphasized that the decision should not be viewed as a victory for one side over another. He acknowledged strong feelings from all perspectives, clarifying that the Equality Act continues to protect transgender individuals against discrimination.
Lord Hodge stated: "The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological woman and biological sex. In a judgment written by Lady Rose, Lady Simler, and myself, with agreement from Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones, we unanimously allow the appeal."
He further stressed: "We counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. The Equality Act provides transgender people protection not only against discrimination due to gender reassignment but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and harassment in their acquired gender."
Lord Hodge highlighted that women have campaigned for equality and against sex-based discrimination for over 150 years, noting that these efforts continue. He also acknowledged the challenges faced by the transgender community, describing them as a vulnerable and frequently harassed minority struggling against discrimination and prejudice.
The court also found that interpreting sex based solely on gender recognition certificates (GRC) would undermine protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation in the Equality Act. Such an interpretation, according to the court, would have implications for lesbian identities, potentially affecting lesbian-focused clubs and associations by redefining sexual orientation categories and impacting autonomy and dignity.
