logo
UK SC backs 'biological' definition of woman

UK SC backs 'biological' definition of woman

Express Tribune17-04-2025

Britain's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the legal definition of a "woman" is based on a person's sex at birth, a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for the bitter debate over trans rights.
In a win for Scottish gender-critical campaigners who brought the case to the UK's highest court, five London judges unanimously ruled that "the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman, and biological sex".
However, the act also "gives transgender people protection" against discrimination in their acquired gender, Justice Patrick Hodge said in handing down the verdict.
The UK government welcomed the ruling for bringing "clarity" to the debate.
It is the culmination of a years-long battle between the Scottish government and the campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) -- which launched an appeal to the Supreme Court after losing pleas in Scottish courts over an obscure legislation aimed at hiring more women in public-sector bodies.
Dozens of FWS and other gender-critical campaigners, who argue that biological sex cannot be changed, cheered the ruling, hugging and crying outside the court.
"This has been a really, really long ride," said Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland.
"Today, the judges have said what we always believed to be the case: that women are protected by their biological sex," she said. "Women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women".
The Scottish government said it accepts the verdict and would focus on "protecting the rights of all".
Trans rights activists had raised concerns that a ruling in favour of FWS could risk discrimination against trans people in their chosen gender.
"The court is well aware of the strength of feeling on all sides which lies behind this appeal," Hodge said.
Scottish Greens activist and trans woman Ellie Gomersall, 25, told Sky News the ruling was "yet another attack on the rights of trans people to live our lives in peace".
But "Harry Potter" author JK Rowling, one of the most prominent supporters of gender-critical campaigns, praised the "three tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them" who refused to drop the case.
"In winning, they've protected the rights of women and girls across the UK," Rowling, who has been accused of transphobia and become a target of hate, posted on X.
At the heart of the legal battle were clashing interpretations of the Equality Act.
While the Scottish government argued that the Equality Act gave trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) the same protections as a biological female, FWS disagreed.
In its judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that the devolved Scottish government's "interpretation is not correct" and that the Equality Act was inconsistent with the 2004 Gender Recognition Act that introduced GRC certificates.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which is responsible for enforcing the Equality Act, said it was "pleased" the ruling addressed complicated issues of maintaining single-sex spaces.
Single-sex spaces and services including changing rooms, hostels and medical services "will function properly only if sex is interpreted as biological sex", the judgement said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

JCP to review tenure of CB
JCP to review tenure of CB

Express Tribune

timean hour ago

  • Express Tribune

JCP to review tenure of CB

A crucial meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, will be held on June 19 in the Supreme Court building. The meeting will discuss extending the tenure of constitutional benches. The matter was last addressed in the commission's session on December 21, 2024, where a majority approved a six-month extension for the nominated judges of the Supreme Court's constitutional benches. At present, 15 judges have been working for the constitutional benches. Among them, a committee led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Ali Mazahar selects judges for the particular constitutional benches. Performance of CB The present CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan has been able to issue only three reported judgement since it's creation through 26th constitutional amendment. The CB had issued first reported judgement in January. This two-page decision was related to the jurisdiction of CB itself. The order had held that regular benches could not hear matters related to the interpretation of law and constitution. Secondly, reported short order has been passed in military courts case. Likewise, another reported judgement was authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. Lawyers are wondering as who will judge the performance of the constitutional bench. They are also raising question that why Justice Mandokhail is not being given independent CB. A lawyer says that the CB started by spending two months studiously avoiding the 26th Amendment case in favour of hearing cases of no importance which had already become infructuous. "It followed that by spending four months almost exclusively on the military courts case before passing a verdict which must surely have pleased the establishment. The only other order of note it passed in that period was to ensure that no regular bench of the Supreme Court could hear any case of importance. "Next, it took up the reserved seats review case in which most of the original judges were excluded and the few who were included seemed to have suddenly, and inexplicably, become of the opposite view from day one", says the lawyer. He said that when the idea of a CB elected by politicians was first floated; many said such a bench was fundamentally against the idea of judicial independence and predicted it would reduce the credibility of the SC to nothing. Nonetheless, judges in Pakistan have sometimes defied predictions. "Unfortunately, the CB's performance thus far has proved this is not one of those times." He also said that the stated rationale of the CB at the time of the 26th Amendment was to improve the constitutional jurisprudence of the SC. In its first six months, the number of detailed judgments it has issued can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And all of them have tended to take out jurisprudence backwards and closer to the desires of the establishment," he adds.

SC rejects plea against mobile towers around KHI airport
SC rejects plea against mobile towers around KHI airport

Express Tribune

timean hour ago

  • Express Tribune

SC rejects plea against mobile towers around KHI airport

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an appeal against the installation of mobile towers around the airport in Karachi, saying that aviation and other authorities concerned said that those towers were built in accordance with international aviation standards. A three-member bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Aqeel Abbasi heard the appeal. According to the observations of the responsible parties, the bench said that there was no danger to the planes taking off from the airport. The petitioner Muhammad Aslam Khan Advocate had argued that some time ago, a Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) plane had crashed into a residential area, in which around 100 people died. The court said in remarks that the accident on the Flight PK-8303 was not due to the population. During the hearing, Justice Mazhar remarked that the house which was hit by the plane was not so high. He said that planes fly daily and the aviation authorities had no problem, so why someone else had the problem with it. Justice Abbasi remarked that entire population around the airport could not be evacuated. Justice Rizvi said in his remarks that if any accident happened in the future, the responsibility would lie with the authorities who were currently saying that the towers did not pose any problem for the planes.

SC demands vehicle seizure records
SC demands vehicle seizure records

Express Tribune

time4 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

SC demands vehicle seizure records

A three-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Shakeel Ahmed, and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, has directed the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Police to submit a complete record of all vehicles held in their warehouses as case property. During the hearing, Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned how police officers were using these case vehicles, remarking, "Why are only low-ranking officers held accountable? Why don't you take action against senior officials? Until high-ranking officers are held responsible, these issues will not be resolved." Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim added, "This situation will not improve until at least one officer is removed from service." Justice Shakeel Ahmed also expressed dismay, saying, "If not for yourselves, then have mercy on this country. How long will such illegal practices continue?" The court instructed the K-P Advocate General to present the full list of vehicles currently stored by the police, including details on which vehicles are linked to which cases, and under what legal provision police officials are authorized to use them. The report is to be submitted by Thursday. These observations were made during the hearing of a petition filed by a local Imran Khan, seeking the return of a vehicle—a 2010 Toyota GLi—belonging to him. His counsel, Anjum Durrani, informed the court that the vehicle has been in the custody of Chamkani Police since 2020 and is now allegedly being used by a retired police officer.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store