Gender critical group threatens legal action over court judgment implementation
Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against the government, has sent ministers a formal 'letter before action'.
In April, the Supreme Court said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex – a ruling which had implications for access to single-sex spaces.
Sex Matters argue the Scottish Government is failing to implement the ruling in the public sector, though ministers including John Swinney have said they accept the judgment and are waiting for further guidance from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission before taking the next steps.
John Swinney has said he accepts the court's ruling (Andrew Milligan/PA)
The letter, seen by the PA news agency, says the government must implement the ruling 'without delay'.
It also says the government's guidance in a document called 'Supporting transgender pupils in schools' is 'wrong and must be withdrawn with immediate effect'.
The charity's chief executive Maya Forstater spoke to the BBC's Good Morning Scotland radio programme on Wednesday.
She said: 'The Supreme Court has made the law absolutely clear: men are male and women are female and both have a right to dignity and privacy in things like toilets and changing rooms as well as specialist services like women's refuges.
'The Scottish Government is dragging its feet, it hasn't changed its policies.'
Ms Forstater said the government had not implemented the ruling in schools or in its own facilities.
She said the government has 14 days to reply to the letter, adding: 'All we're asking them to do is put a simple statement on their website which says that their facilities are separated by sex and they also provide unisex facilities so everyone's included.'
In response to Sex Matters' concerns, a spokesman for the government told The Times: 'The Scottish Government has been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment.
'We are reviewing policies, guidance and legislation potentially impacted by the judgment.
'This will prepare us to take all necessary steps when the regulator of the Equality Act 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, publishes its revised statutory code of practice and associated guidance for services, public functions and associations. The EHRC is currently consulting on this revised code of practice.
'We will respond to any letter received in due course.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Feminists threaten to sue SNP for ‘ignoring' Supreme Court trans ruling
SNP ministers have been threatened with legal action for failing to comply with the Supreme Court ruling that banned biological men from women's toilets and changing rooms. Human rights charity Sex Matters has given the Scottish Government two weeks to introduce new policies and guidance or face further court action. In a formal 'letter before action' sent to ministers, the charity demanded that they issue a statement that policies allowing trans people to access women-only spaces be 'suspended with immediate effect'. 'Updated and lawful guidance' should be issued 'at the earliest opportunity', the letter said, with public bodies ordered 'to take immediate action to provide single-sex facilities on the basis of biological sex '. Ruling is 'the law now' First Minister John Swinney has said Scotland's public sector should await guidance on implementing the ruling from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) before acting. But Sex Matters said April's Supreme Court ruling was 'the law now' and it had not been 'suspended in any way' pending the EHRC guidance, which is expected to be published later this summer. The EHRC has previously told the Scottish Government it did not need to delay, noting that the law was already set out in the Supreme Court's 'very readable' ruling and this was 'effective immediately'. Interim guidance has also been issued by the equalities watchdog stating that access to single-sex facilities in workplaces and public services should be based on biological sex. The Tories said Sex Matters had been left with 'no choice' but to threaten legal action to force SNP ministers to comply, 'leaving taxpayers on the hook for costly payouts'. Sturgeon's self-ID When Nicola Sturgeon was in government she proposed allowing trans people to self-identify – meaning they could change gender by signing a declaration without a medical diagnosis. However, after it was passed by MSPs, the controversial Gender Recognition Reform Bill was vetoed by the UK Government over concerns it undermined safety in single-sex spaces. But swathes of Scotland's public sector adopted self-ID, allowing trans people access to female toilets and changing rooms. On April 16, feminist campaign group For Women Scotland won against the Scottish Government in the Supreme Court, which ruled that the definition of woman was based on biological sex. Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, said the ruling 'made the law absolutely clear' about who could access women's toilets, changing rooms and refuges but 'the Scottish Government is dragging its feet'. She told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme: 'It hasn't changed its policies. It still has a policy in schools of saying that schools should allow a child who identifies as transgender to use opposite sex toilets and changing rooms and for its employees in government buildings. 'That exposes women and girls, in particular, to harassment because of their sex. Allowing a man or a boy into a women's toilet creates a hostile environment for women and girls, and that's unlawful.' Ms Forstater said the charity had held a meeting two weeks ago with Scottish Government officials but argued that they were 'passing the buck' by claiming they had to wait for the EHRC guidance. Although she acknowledged that small businesses without access to legal advice may rely on the EHRC, she said this did not apply to SNP ministers. She added: 'They do understand the law, they have legal advisers on tap and they should act now.' She said there was 'no reason to wait' and noted that any woman forced to share a female-only safe space with a biological man could take legal action against the Scottish Government. Asked about the charity's next move, she said: 'They have 14 days to reply. What we've asked them to do is something quite simple. They have the facilities already. 'They have male toilets, female toilets and unisex and all we're asking them to do is put a simple statement on their website that says that their facilities are separated by sex and that they also provide unisex facilities, so that everyone's included.' The letter, which was signed by Ms Forstater, also told SNP ministers that their guidance in a document called 'Supporting transgender pupils in schools' is 'wrong and must be withdrawn with immediate effect'. If the Scottish Government fails to comply within 14 days, she warned 'we may commence proceedings without further warning'. Ms Forstater added: 'For the avoidance of any doubt, we have already consulted with solicitors and counsel in relation to the matters set out in this letter and are prepared to litigate in relation to them.' 'Reckless pandering' Tess White, the Scottish Tories' equalities minister, said: 'The Supreme Court's judgment was crystal clear, but John Swinney still refuses to follow it. 'Sex Matters shouldn't have to threaten legal action, but the SNP government is leaving them no choice by clinging to unlawful guidance on single-sex spaces. 'This reckless pandering to gender ideologues is putting women and girls at risk – and leaving taxpayers on the hook for costly payouts.' Shirley-Anne Somerville, the SNP's Social Justice Secretary, said the Scottish Government accepted the court's decision and was 'moving forward right across government with work on this issue'. She said: 'That's exactly why we have the short-life working group that brings together the civil servants from right across government to ensure that we're delivering at pace and we're delivering consistently.' A Scottish Government spokesman said: ''We are reviewing policies, guidance and legislation potentially impacted by the judgment. 'This will prepare us to take all necessary steps when the regulator of the Equality Act 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, publishes its revised statutory code of practice and associated guidance for services, public functions and associations. 'The EHRC is currently consulting on this revised code of practice. We will respond to any letter received in due course.'
STV News
35 minutes ago
- STV News
Scottish Government threatened with legal action over single-sex spaces
The Scottish Government has been threatened with legal action if it fails to implement the recent Supreme Court judgement on biological sex in equalities law. Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against the government, has sent ministers a formal 'letter before action'. In April, the Supreme Court said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex – a ruling which had implications for access to single-sex spaces. Sex Matters argue the Scottish Government is failing to implement the ruling in the public sector, though ministers including John Swinney have said they accept the judgment and are waiting for further guidance from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission before taking the next steps. 'It is clear that taking no action at the moment is not a lawful option that is available to the Scottish Government,' the letter said. 'As a bare minimum, the Scottish Government is required – now – to review and amend its practices and policies and guidance to ensure that it is made clear that 'single-sex spaces' means single biological sex spaces. 'A failure to take that step will mean that the Scottish Government is deliberately choosing to act unlawfully.' The letter urges the Scottish Government to comply with the UK Supreme Court ruling from April, which determined that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act refer to biological women and sex. Scottish ministers previously said the judgement will 'inevitably' mean changes to the advice given to public bodies and health boards about single-sex spaces. However, the Scottish Government has been waiting for fresh guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (ECHR) before making any permanent changes. This 'proposed delay' has caused concern for the Sex Matters group. Speaking to BBC's Good Morning Scotland radio programme on Wednesday, the charity's CEO Maya Forstater said: 'The Supreme Court has made the law absolutely clear: men are male and women are female and both have a right to dignity and privacy in things like toilets and changing rooms as well as specialist services like women's refuges. 'The Scottish Government is dragging its feet, it hasn't changed its policies.' Ms Forstater said the government had not implemented the ruling in schools or in its own facilities. She said the government has 14 days to reply to the letter, adding: 'All we're asking them to do is put a simple statement on their website which says that their facilities are separated by sex and they also provide unisex facilities so everyone's included.' In response to Sex Matters' concerns, a spokesman for the government told The Times: 'The Scottish Government has been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment. 'We are reviewing policies, guidance and legislation potentially impacted by the judgment. 'This will prepare us to take all necessary steps when the regulator of the Equality Act 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, publishes its revised statutory code of practice and associated guidance for services, public functions and associations. The EHRC is currently consulting on this revised code of practice. 'We will respond to any letter received in due course.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court opens door for ‘untold harm' by upholding ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth, liberal justices warn
The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming healthcare for transgender minors, delivering a major blow to access to care for trans people as the Trump administration seeks to end federal recognition of trans people entirely. The high court's 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts is expected to have nationwide impacts, after more than two dozen states enact similar bans on access to hormone therapy and other gender-affirming healthcare for trans people under 18. All three liberal justices dissented. 'This case presents an easy question,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. At issue is whether Tennessee 's law banning certain healthcare constitutes a form of sex discrimination that violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment. 'Because sex determines access to the covered medications, it clearly does. Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade,' she wrote. 'Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down [the law], or categorical healthcare bans like it,' she added. 'The Court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. The conservative majority's ruling 'also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them,' she added. Justices were asked to decide whether states that ban transgender children from medically recommended healthcare qualifies as unconstitutional sex discrimination under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. During December's oral arguments in United States v Skrmetti, several conservative justices suggested they would leave a decision on standards for trans healthcare up to individual states, echoing similar arguments from the landmark ruling that revoked a constitutional right to abortion care. The justices heard more than two hours of wide-ranging arguments and questions on whether trans people can be constitutionally protected from discrimination during oral arguments last year. Justice Samuel Alito grilled ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, the first-ever openly trans attorney to present at the high court, to repeatedly cast doubt on whether being transgender is 'immutable' and thus protected by anti-discrimination laws. 'I think that the record shows that the discordance between a person's birth, sex and gender identity has a strong biological basis and would satisfy an immutability test,' Strangio replied. In 2020, medically necessary gender-affirming healthcare was available to transgender young people in every state. Within the years that followed, that same healthcare was outlawed in nearly half of states, after hundreds of bills targeting LGBT+ young people flooded statehouses on a wave of anti-trans rhetoric that dominated campaign messaging into the 2024 presidential election. South Dakota was the first state to introduce an outright ban. Arkansas was the first to make one law. By the end of 2024, 26 states made affirming care for trans minors illegal. Nearly 40 percent of trans youth aged 13 to 17 — roughly 119,000 children — are living in those states, according to the Human Rights Campaign. One week after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to rescind policies that support or acknowledge gender-affirming healthcare for transgender Americans. He also issued an executive order effectively ending federal recognition of trans people across the government, forming the basis for several other orders focused exclusively on trans people, their healthcare and whether they can serve in the U.S. military. His sweeping order on gender-affirming care targets the prescription of puberty blockers, hormone therapies and affirming surgeries for anyone under 19 years old — an age group that includes adult Americans. Major medical organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and American Counseling Association, among others, agree that such care is clinically appropriate for trans youth experiencing gender dysphoria. Medical guidelines generally say that affirming surgeries should only be approved for people ages 18 and older, and they are rarely, if ever, performed.
