UK mulls over woman definition
Public bodies will have to review policies in light of ruling. Photo: File
From toilets and changing rooms to sports pitches and hospital wards, a ruling by Britain's Supreme Court on the legal definition of a "woman" is expected to have far-reaching consequences.
The court ruled on Wednesday that the legal definition of a "woman" is based on a person's sex at birth. Five judges unanimously ruled that "the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman, and biological sex".
The court's pronouncement follows a legal battle between the Scottish government and campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) involving clashing interpretations of the Equality Act.
While the Scottish government argued that the law gave trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) the same protections as a biological female, the campaign group disagreed.
After the court's decision, public bodies will now have to review their policies. The British Transport Police said Thursday that it has changed its strip search policy, and trans people held in custody would be searched by an officer in line with their birth sex.
Women-only spaces
Single-sex spaces and services including changing rooms "will function properly only if sex is interpreted as biological sex", the judgement said.
Kishwer Falkner, chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which is responsible for enforcing the Equality Act, told BBC radio the law was now clear.
"If a service provider says 'we're offering a women's toilet', then trans people should not be using that single-sex facility," she said.
But she highlighted that there was no law forcing organisations to provide single-sex spaces and no law preventing them providing unisex toilets or changing rooms.
She said trans rights organisations should push for more neutral third spaces to accommodate trans people.
Impact on trans women
Current guidance from the body that runs the state-funded National Health Service in England states that trans people should be "accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use".
The advice has meant that trans women have been allowed to opt for treatment in women-only hospital wards even if they do not have a gender recognition certificate or have not legally changed their name.
The certificate is a UK legal document that recognises an individual's gender identity, allowing them to legally change their sex.
"The NHS is currently reviewing guidance on same sex accommodation," an NHS England spokesperson told AFP.
Falkner said the watchdog would pursue the NHS if it did not change the existing guidance on the treatment of trans women patients.
Sporting ramifications
The court decision is a victory for prominent voices in the debate such as swimmer Sharron Davies, who won an Olympic silver medal at the Moscow Games in 1980.
It was time for sports bodies to "protect every female athlete", she said after the ruling.
Campaigners said there were now "no excuses" for allowing transgender women to compete in women's sporting events.
Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at the charity Sex Matters, said the law had in fact always been "clear that everyone male can be excluded to provide fair, safe sport for women and girls, but some people claimed it was unkind or complicated to do so".
Falkner said the ruling made it "simple" that people assigned male at birth cannot take part in women's sport.
Sebastian Coe, the president of World Athletics, told Sky News he welcomed the ruling "because it has produced clarity".
"It is really important that we continue to protect the integrity of women's competition," he added.
Former Football Association (FA) chairman David Triesman told the Daily Telegraph that rulemakers who allowed trans women to compete alongside biological women should "stand down immediately".
Gender recognition certificates
The usefulness of the gender recognition certificate would be re-assessed in light of the ruling, Falkner said.
Asked if she thought the documents were now "worthless", she said she believed they were "quite important" but that future litigation was likely to provide clarity on their "efficacy".
"It's going to be a space that we'll have to watch very carefully as we go on," she said.
"There will be other areas... the government is thinking of digital IDs, and if digital IDs come in, then what documentation will provide the identity of that person?"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah becomes acting CJP in rare Eid day ceremony
Listen to article Senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, took oath as the Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan on Saturday, in an unprecedented ceremony held on Eid day at the Supreme Court's Lahore Registry. The oath was administered by Justice Ayesha A. Malik, marking a rare event where the swearing-in of the country's top judicial office took place outside the federal capital and on a public holiday. The ceremony was attended by Supreme Court judges Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. Advocate General Punjab Amjad Pervez, along with several senior members of the legal fraternity, was also present. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah will serve as Acting Chief Justice until June 10, during the absence of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, who is currently in Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj. Justice Isa is expected to resume his duties upon his return next week.
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive social security data
The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen the morning before justices are expected to issue opinions in pending cases, in Washington, U.S., June 14, 2024. Photo:REUTERS Listen to article The US Supreme Court granted on Friday the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key player in President Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. On the request of the Justice Department, the judiciary had put on hold Maryland-based US District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing DOGE unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The top court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with DOGE. BREAKING: The Supreme Court grants DOGE affiliates access to Social Security Administration records. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson would deny the request. — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2025 The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the order. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent that was joined by fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the court's majority for granting DOGE "unfettered data access" despite the administration's "failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards." In a separate order on Friday, the Supreme Court extended its block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by US President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. DOGE swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30. Two labor unions and an advocacy group filed suits to prevent DOGE from accessing sensitive data at the Social Security Administration (SSA), including social security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients including retirees and disabled Americans. Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group that represented the plaintiffs, said Friday's order would put millions of Americans' data at risk. "Elon Musk may have left Washington DC, but his impact continues to harm millions of people," the group said in a statement. "We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that SSA had been "ransacked" and that DOGE members had been installed without proper vetting or training. They demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Hollander in an April 17 ruling found that DOGE had failed to explain why its stated mission required "unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems". "For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records," Hollander wrote. "This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation." Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited DOGE staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with only narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling did allow DOGE affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Hollander also ordered DOGE affiliates to "disgorge and delete" any personal information already in their possession. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on April 30 to pause Hollander's block on DOGE's unlimited access to Social Security Administration records. Justice department lawyers in their Supreme Court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach. "The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access," they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which 4th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow DOGE to access data at the US Treasury and Education Departments and the Office of Personnel Management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against DOGE wrote that the case involving Social Security data was "substantially stronger" with "vastly greater stakes," citing "detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records," such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
PHC halts rollback of cadet promotions
A two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) has restrained authorities from revoking the promotions of police officers who had advanced in rank as cadets in the Khybe-Pakhtunkhwa police. The court also sought a detailed response from the concerned departments. The bench, comprising Justice Naeem Anwar and Justice Farah Jamshed, was hearing a writ petition filed by Amjad Hussain and others through Advocate Syed Asif Ali Shah. The petitioners argued that they are currently serving at the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and other senior positions in the police force, having received promotions during their training period when they were officially designated as cadets (those candidates who topped their promotion courses). According to the petitioners, under Standing Order No. 11 of 1987, police officers declared cadets during their course were entitled to faster promotions compared to their peers. These promotions, they asserted, do not fall under the category of "out-of-turn" promotions, which were declared unlawful by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the context of Sindh and Punjab. The petitioners further stated that the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa government had initially attempted to reverse their promotions by misapplying the Supreme Court's ruling. However, in 2022, the Peshawar High Court had ruled that these promotions were legally protected through proper legislative measures and did not qualify as out-of-turn promotions. They noted that the Supreme Court had laid out distinct procedures for various categories of promotions and that the current Inspector General of Police had, on May 23, 2025, issued a notification wrongly categorizing their cadet-based promotions as out-of-turn.
