On the 16th of April 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement in For Women Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, holding that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA), the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” refers to a person’s biological sex.
Background
Sex Discrimination Act 1975
When the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was passed, parliaments intention was that the words “man” and “woman” would refer to biological sex. This intention did not change when the act was amended in 1999 by the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations, which extended coverage to include discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.
Gender Recognition Act 2004
The Gender Recognition Act 2004 allowed a person who is 18 years old to apply for legal recognition of their “acquired gender” through issue of a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The act provided that, on the issue of a GRC, a person’s gender becomes “for all purposes” the acquired gender (section 9(1). However, this was subject to provisions made by the GRA, any other enactment or subordinate legislation.
Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 defined 9 protected characteristics which were automatically protected from discrimination. The act shows a clear distinction between “sex” and “gender reassignment”, which are separate protected characteristics under the act (sections 7 and 9). The protected characteristic of “sex” is binary and refers only to a man or a woman, with a woman being defined in section 212(1) as “a female of any age”.
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Recommendations
In 2023, the EHRC considered that a redefinition of “sex” in the EqA 2010 to mean biological sex would provide clarity in several key areas:
- Pregnancy and maternity: Trans men who were pregnant and whose legal sex was male were not included in protections for pregnant woman and new mothers.
- Freedom of association: A woman’s book club may have to admit a trans woman who had a GRC.
- Occupational requirements: An occupational requirement for a warden in a woman’s hostel to be a woman could mean the role is open to a trans woman with a GRC.
- Single-sex and separate sex services: A trans woman with a GRC can access a “women-only” service, such as a women’s hospital ward.
- Sport: An organiser of women’s sport that wishes to exclude trans women is required to show that it is necessary in the interests of safety or fairness.
- Data Collection: When data is categorised by legal sex instead of biological sex, it can significantly distort or limit the understanding of social and medical issues.
Criticisms and Support
Transgender rights groups such as Stonewall and Scottish Trans have expressed concerns that the ruling may exacerbate discrimination and marginalisation of transgender individuals. Furthermore, many legal professionals contend that the decision may prompt the need for legislative reform to align the EqA with modern understandings of gender identity.
However, groups such as Women Scotland and public figures like J.K. Rowling have welcomed the ruling as reinforcement of women’s rights based on biological sex.
Implications for Employers
The Supreme Court’s ruling likely provides a welcome clarity for employers in the meaning of “man”, “woman” and “sex” for the purposes of the EqA. However, the ruling has significant implications for employers, particularly in the interpretation and application of the EqA in the workplace.
Most notably, the ruling clarifies that “sex” refers to biological sex, not gender identity – even for those with a GRC. As a result, employers may need to revise policies concerning single-sex spaces, such as toilets, changing rooms, and gender-specific roles. While the ruling supports the use of sex-based distinctions in some contexts, these must still comply with the EqA’s broader framework, meaning any exclusion of transgender individuals must be legally justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The decision also affects recruitment strategies and diversity initiatives, especially where gender-based targets or quotas are involved. Employers will need to clearly define whether targets refer to biological sex or gender identity and ensure consistency to avoid claims of discrimination. Additionally, HR teams will likely be required to update internal training to reflect this legal clarification, while still ensuring protections under the “gender reassignment” characteristic are respected. Employers must ensure they strike the right balance, not only for legal compliance but to maintain an inclusive workplace culture and protect against reputational or litigation risks.
