Geneva, 22 May, 2025.- A group of independent human rights experts* today expressed concern about the implications of the recent UK Supreme Court judgment interpreting the definition of “woman” under the Equality Act 2010.
While the ruling was limited to a question of statutory interpretation, the experts warned that it risks entrenching legal uncertainty and undermining the rights of transgender persons in all aspects of life, including education.
“The Court was clear that it was not offering a cultural or political definition of womanhood,” the experts said. “Yet, the ruling has far-reaching social consequences and places two existing laws – the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act – in direct tension with one another,” the experts said.
The case concerned whether trans women with gender recognition certificates could be included in public sector diversity measures in Scotland. The Court concluded that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, the term “woman” refers to biological sex. However, provisions within the Equality Act, which continues to prohibit discrimination based on gender reassignment, sex and perceived sex and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 that protect the rights of transgender persons remain valid, including that individuals with a gender recognition certificate must be treated “for all purposes” as their acquired gender.
Despite this nuanced legal framing, the ruling has been widely misrepresented in public discourse, the experts noted. Some have erroneously claimed it redefines sex or strips away protections for transgender people, they said.
“The judgment does not remove the legal protections trans people currently enjoy under the Equality Act,” the experts said. “But it may be used to justify exclusionary policies that further stigmatise and marginalise an already vulnerable population, as well as human rights defenders working to protect and promote transgender rights. We are deeply concerned that the application of this judgment may lead to increased discrimination and exclusion of transgender women in various sectors, including the workplace, at a critical time when employers should be striving to foster and maintain inclusive environments for all employees.”
They also raised concerns about how interim guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has interpreted the ruling, allowing – and in some cases requiring – organisations to exclude individuals from single-sex spaces based on biological sex. This could lead to situations where both trans women and trans men are barred from facilities aligned with their gender identity, or even excluded altogether, the experts warned.
“In effect, the ruling could produce precisely the outcomes its proponents claim to avoid: (trans) men in women’s spaces, (trans) women in men’s spaces, and no safe access for trans people at all,” the experts said. “It is essential that the UK’s legal framework reflects the realities of people’s lives and upholds its human rights obligations.”
The experts recalled that the UK has previously been found in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights for failing to provide adequate legal recognition for trans individuals, leading to the adoption of the Gender Recognition Act in 2004. They warned that, without corrective changes to law and policy, the current ruling could lead to similar legal challenges being reopened.
“The law must be clear, coherent, and consistent with international human rights standards,” the experts said. “We urge UK lawmakers to act decisively to reform and align the legal framework in a way that ensures dignity, equality, and non-discrimination for all.”