Trans women with gender certificate can be barred from single-sex areas
Campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) brought a series of challenges – including to the UK's highest court – over the definition of 'woman' and whether someone with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under anti-discrimination legislation.
In a judgment on Wednesday, five Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled in FWS's favour, finding that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'.
The justices said that this interpretation of the law does not cause disadvantage to trans people, who were described as a 'potentially vulnerable group'.
In an 88-page judgment, justices Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler said that while the word 'biological' does not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, 'the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman'.
The justices, supported by Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones, later said that if 'sex' did not only mean biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces including changing rooms, homeless hostels and medical services would face 'practical difficulties'.
They said: 'If as a matter of law, a service provider is required to provide services previously limited to women also to trans women with a GRC, even if they present as biological men, it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men and who also look like biological men.'
The justices added: 'Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.'
They later said that while there were 'carve-outs' in the Equality Act for single sex spaces which permit what would usually be seen as gender reassignment discrimination, there was no similar exception for people with a GRC.
'The intention must have been to allow for the exclusion of those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, regardless of the possession of a GRC, in order to maintain the provision of single or separate services for women and men as distinct groups in appropriate circumstances,' the justices continued.
The justices said that if sex had its 'biological meaning' then service providers could separate male and female users into different groups, such as separate hostels for homeless people.
They added: 'If sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service … would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status.'
Obtaining a GRC requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, having lived in the acquired gender for at least two years and an intention to live in that gender for the rest of the applicant's life.
Following the decision, a UK Government spokesman said: 'We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.
'This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
'Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government.'
Scotland's First Minister said the Scottish Government accepts the ruling, adding that 'protecting the rights of all' will inform its response.
In a post on X, John Swinney also said: 'The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster.
'We will now engage on the implications of the ruling.'
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said the ruling was a 'victory'.
She said: 'Saying 'trans women are women' was never true in fact, and now isn't true in law either.
'This is a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.
'The era of (Prime Minister Sir) Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end.
'Well done to For Women Scotland.'
Author JK Rowling, who has been outspoken on gender issues, said in a post on X that the campaigners who brought the case to the Supreme Court have 'protected the rights of women and girls across the UK'.
She also said: 'It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court,' adding: 'I'm so proud to know you.'
Campaign group Sex Matters, which had made arguments in the case, said the court had given 'the right answer'.
Maya Forstater, the group's chief executive, said: 'We are delighted that the Supreme Court has accepted the arguments of For Women Scotland and rejected the position of the Scottish Government.
'The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not to paperwork.'
But LGBT charity Stonewall said there is 'deep concern' around the consequences of the Supreme Court ruling, which it said is 'incredibly worrying for the trans community'.
Chief executive Simon Blake added: 'It's important to be reminded the court strongly and clearly reaffirmed the Equality Act protects all trans people against discrimination, based on gender reassignment, and will continue to do so.
The justices said transgender people are still protected from discrimination, and that 'they would be able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and indirect discrimination' if needed.
The matter first came to court in 2022 when FWS successfully challenged the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 over its inclusion of trans women in its definition of women.
The Court of Session ruled changing the definition of a woman in the Act was unlawful, as it dealt with matters falling outside the Scottish Parliament's legal competence.
Following the challenge, the Scottish Government dropped the definition from the Act and issued revised statutory guidance – essentially, advice on how to comply with the law, prompting further legal challenges from FWS.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Rural taxpayers set to contribute ‘unfair' levels of funding for urban-area services
The government have been warned that people in rural areas who pay council tax will contribute 'unfair' levels of funding for services. Councils councils say that money will be used for urban communities under proposed government reforms. Large rural authorities have also highlighted that maximum council tax increases will be needed to deliver necessary core budget increases for essential services over the next three years. Although, in its submission to the government's consultation on planned reforms, known as the 'fair funding review 2.0', the County Councils Network (CCN) said the proposals were 'better than feared'. The network welcomed some elements that determine funding levels, such as an indicator for remoteness and a new formula for social care and school transport allocations, which it said 'better recognise the needs' of the 38 county areas. But CCN called on the government to reconsider its broader approach, insisting the proposals 'place a disproportionate burden on council taxpayers in county areas to fund local services and redistribute funding to urban areas'. Modelling showed that under the proposals £1.6 billion in council tax income generated in county areas will be redistributed across the country. This is due to a decision by ministers to include 100 per cent of local council tax receipts when allocating funds in a bid to 'equalise' revenue across the sector, in a departure from the previous approach which took in 85 per cent. CCN said this means 32 of the 38 county and rural authorities will lose an additional £400 million in a process that would represent an 'overwhelming' benefit for urban metropolitan boroughs. The analysis showed 22 authorities will receive increases in direct government funding totalling £845 million under the plans. But on average these councils will receive 70 per cent of their overall increase in core spending power, the official measure of funding available for services, from council tax rises specifically. In addition, 16 other councils, including some located in the North and the Midlands, will experience funding cuts totalling £470 million. With no increase in direct government funding, the entire increase in core spending power for these authorities will come from council tax rises, CCN said. 'One third of council tax income raised in these areas over the three-year period is needed to offset cuts to funding and prevent them falling below a proposed 0 per cent funding floor,' the network added. Across all 38 county and rural unitary councils, direct grant funding will increase by £374 million, with 90 per cent of the total uplift in core spending power coming via maximum 5 per cent annual council tax rises. The modelling suggests this scenario is in stark contrast to the impact on councils in urban areas, with nearly 50 per cent of metropolitan authorities' extra resources coming from additional grant funding of £1.2 billion over three years. Overall, in the absence of maximum annual council tax rises over the period, the analysis showed 33 of the 38 county and rural unitary authorities would experience a real-terms reduction in funding, CCN said. The new government grant would fund just 9 per cent of the estimated £4.4 billion increase in the cost of providing services in county and rural areas over three years, while the boost in Government funding for metropolitan authorities would fund half of the total £2.4 billion increase in estimated costs of services in those areas. CCN said it is 'simply unrealistic' to expect some of England's largest social care councils to 'provide life critical services while receiving deep cuts in government grant' and called for 'significantly' more funding to prevent 'unsustainable cuts'. Chairman of the CCN Tim Oliver said: 'Some 16 county and rural councils across the length and breadth of the country will see reductions in grant funding, while the government's proposals place a disproportionate burden on council taxpayers in county areas to fund local services and redistribute funding to urban areas. 'Those facing cuts in government funding will inevitably have to reduce vital frontline services, while the reliance on council tax rises leaves even those with modest funding increases facing an extremely challenging funding outlook. 'While we recognise the need to take account of how much councils raise in local taxation, the government's proposals to fully equalise unfairly redistribute hundreds of millions of local council tax to other areas, while weakening the incentive to build homes.' Sir Stephen Houghton, chairman of the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities, backed the government's approach. He said: 'It is absolutely right that any new funding system must fully reflect the wide disparities in councils' ability to raise income through council tax. 'The failure to do so over the past decade has led to disproportionately deep cuts in the most deprived areas, worsening inequality across the country.' The government's consultation on the reforms closed on Friday. A Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: 'We do not recognise the (CCN) analysis. The current, outdated way in which local authorities are funded has left communities behind and damaged local services. 'This must change and is why we are taking decisive action as part of our Plan for Change to reform the funding system so we can improve public services, while maintaining the previous government's referendum threshold on council tax rises so taxpayers have the final say and are protected from excessive increases.' Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'Yet again the Labour government are showing utter contempt for people living in rural Britain. 'The family farms tax has been devastating for British farming and scrapping the rural services grant has put rural councils under enormous pressure. Now this latest spiteful change will steal more money out of the hands of county councils and send it straight into Labour-run urban areas. 'Only the Conservatives are serious about standing up for our rural communities' Liberal Democrat local government spokeswoman Vikki Slade said the reforms could be severely detrimental to some areas. Ms Slade said: 'Councils across the country are already teetering on the edge after years of Conservatives' neglect of local funding and services – from bus services cuts in rural areas to the rising costs of social care. These ill-thought-out reforms only risk leaving parts of the country significantly worse off. 'To truly help local authorities, the government should urgently look at supporting councils who receive the least grant funding and those that face additional pressure on services in rural and coastal areas, to help them with spiralling costs.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Oregon city at heart of Supreme Court homelessness ruling to ensure camping spaces under settlement
The Oregon city at the heart of a major U.S. Supreme Court homelessness ruling has agreed to ensure camping spaces for at least 150 people as part of a settlement reached with a disability rights group that sued the city over its camping rules. Disability Rights Oregon, which sued Grants Pass in January, said Friday that it had reached a settlement agreement. The advocacy group accused the city of discriminating against people with disabilities and violating a state law requiring cities' camping regulations to be 'objectively reasonable.' 'This settlement represents a significant step forward in ensuring people with disabilities experiencing homelessness have places to rest, basic necessities like drinking water, and real opportunity to stabilize their lives,' Jake Cornett, executive director and CEO of Disability Rights Oregon, said in a statement. Grants Pass Mayor Clint Scherf said in an email Tuesday that the city appreciates having reached an agreement and will "continue to work toward effective measures to benefit all members of our community.' A copy of the settlement agreement showed the city signed off on it earlier this month. Josephine County Circuit Court Judge Sarah McGlaughlin issued a preliminary injunction in March blocking the city from enforcing its camping rules unless it increased capacity at city-approved sites for camping and ensured they are physically accessible to people with disabilities. City ordinances prohibit sleeping or leaving personal property in a park overnight in most cases. Those found in violation can be fined up to $50. The city said Friday on Facebook that law enforcement 'will begin noticing the parks, and occupants will have 72 hours to remove their belongings.' The city's website shows three 'designated resting locations' in the downtown area, near City Hall and the police station, where people can stay for four days before having to relocate. The time limit can be enforced unless disability accommodations are necessary, the city said on Facebook. At resting sites, individuals are limited to spaces that are 8 feet by 8 feet (2.4 meters by 2.4 meters), with buffers of 3 feet (0.9 meters) between spaces, as outlined in city code. Under the settlement, Grants Pass must ensure that at least 150 camping spaces are available in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act for the next 12 months. Drinking water and hand washing stations must be available on-site. The city must also provide $60,000 in grant funding to a nonprofit for homeless services. Grants Pass, a small city of about 40,000 along the Rogue River in the mountains of southern Oregon, has struggled for years to address the homelessness crisis and become emblematic of the national debate over how to deal with it. Its parks in particular became a flashpoint, with many of them becoming the site of encampments blighted by drug use and litter. Last June, in a case brought by the city, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that communities can ban sleeping outside and fine people for doing so, even when there are not enough shelter beds. After the high court ruling, Grants Pass banned camping on all city property except locations designated by the City Council, which established sites for the town's hundreds of homeless people in a bid to move them from the parks. Upon taking office in January, the new mayor and new council members moved to close the larger of the two sites, which housed roughly 120 tents, according to Disability Rights Oregon's complaint, which said the sites were frequently crowded with poor conditions and inaccessible to people with disabilities because of loose gravel. After the lawsuit was filed, the city reopened a second, smaller site. McGlaughin's order in March said the city had to increase capacity to what it had been before the larger site was closed. Homelessness increased 18% last year nationwide, driven mostly by a lack of affordable housing as well as devastating natural disasters and an increase in migrants in some areas.
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Labour's migrant hotels policy dealt major blow after council WINS battle to stop asylum seekers being housed there
ASYLUM seekers will be kicked out of a flashpoint hotel after a council yesterday won a court battle to ban them living there. The decision is a huge blow to the Government's policy of housing migrants in hotels. 4 Police outside asylum hotel The Bell in Epping, Essex Credit: PA 4 Protesters demonstrate against illegal migrants being housed in the hotel Credit: Darren Fletcher 4 A local downs bubbly at the hotel after the court ruling Credit: n.c A High Court judge ruled the move to accommodate the migrants over paying customers at The Bell Hotel may breach planning rules. Epping Forest District Council launched the legal challenge after protests erupted in recent weeks. Public anger grew after a migrant living at the hotel in Epping, Essex, was charged with sexual assault. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said the ruling throws Labour's asylum policy into chaos. 'Plans thrown into chaos' Other councils are now poised to launch their own legal challenges to the Home Office scheme. Twelve hotels located in areas where Reform UK has a majority are understood to be planning their own court battles. Corina Gander, Tory leader of Broxbourne Borough Council, Herts, said the decision had set a 'massive precedent' and boosted their efforts to close a migrant hotel. Yesterday's temporary injunction, subject to appeal, means everyone being put up at The Bell must leave before September 12, with a hearing to decide whether to make it permanent later in the year. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's 11th-hour bid to get the case dismissed was refused by the judge. A lawyer for the Home Office warned the decision would 'substantially impact' its ability to house asylum seekers in hotels. Migrant hotel protesters take to the streets again as demonstrations spread across the country in weekend stand-off Edward Brown KC also said it 'runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests'. Border security minister Angela Eagle said the Government aimed to close all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament. She said: 'We will continue working with local authorities to address legitimate concerns. 'We will carefully consider this judgment.' Mr Philp said: 'This throws asylum accommodation plans into chaos. "Many councils will now follow Epping's lead and take legal action to avoid hundreds of young male illegal immigrants being housed in the middle of their communities. All things being equal, The Bell will be empty by September 12, and that's really important for Epping Forest. Philip Coppel KC 'We now know many crimes including rapes and sexual assaults have been committed by illegal immigrants in asylum hotels, and many local councils will want to protect their residents from this.' After a hearing in London's High Court last week, Mr Justice Eyre said Somani Hotels Limited, owners of The Bell Hotel, had 'sidestepped public scrutiny' by not applying for planning permission to convert it to migrant use. In his judgment, he said that while the council in Epping had not 'definitively established' Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, 'the strength of the claimant's case is such that it weighs in favour' of granting the injunction. He also said the fear of crime being committed by migrants was a 'relevant factor' and it is 'understandable' that recent arrests 'form a basis for the local concern'. 4 Council leader Chris Whitbread hailed the judgement but urged locals not to gloat Credit: EPA Philip Coppel KC, for the local authority, said the situation was 'wholly unacceptable' and provided a 'feeding ground for unrest'. He added: 'There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of The Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers. 'It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. 'It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers. 'It really could not be much worse than this.' Council leader Chris Whitbread hailed the judgement. Outside the Royal Courts of Justice, he said: 'All things being equal, The Bell will be empty by September 12, and that's really important for Epping Forest. 'The Government have to address the bigger issue of the illegal asylum problem, but in Epping Forest we will stand up for our residents.' Mr Whitbread also urged locals not to gloat. He said: 'Don't protest. 'This is the beginning, not the end.' This community stood up bravely, despite being slandered as far-right, and have won. Nigel Farage Reform UK leader Nigel Farage called it 'a victory for the parents and concerned residents of Epping'. He said: 'This community stood up bravely, despite being slandered as far-right, and have won. 'They represent the vast majority of decent people in this country. 'Young, undocumented males who break into the UK illegally should not be free to walk the streets anywhere. 'They must be detained and deported. 'I hope that Epping provides inspiration to others.' Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said that 'disagreement with Government policy' did not justify an injunction. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch hailed the ruling as a 'victory for mums and dads'. She said of the migrants: 'They need to be moved out immediately. 'Bring back a proper deterrent and remove all illegal arrivals immediately, so towns like Epping never have to deal with this again.' In 2023, Great Yarmouth Borough Council won an injunction preventing hotels along its seafront from being used to house asylum seekers.
