Latest news with #ForWomenScotlandLtd
Spectator
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
The Maggie Chapman saga is a new low for the Scottish Parliament
The Scottish Parliament's equalities committee has voted against removing Green MSP Maggie Chapman as deputy convenor following her attack on the Supreme Court. At a rally in Aberdeen in the wake of the judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers, in which Lord Hodge found for a unanimous panel that the term 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 referred to biological sex, Chapman, an outspoken advocate of gender ideology, decried 'bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court'. This prompted the Faculty of Advocates to call for Chapman's resignation as deputy convenor of the Holyrood committee responsible for equalities legislation, human rights and civil justice. The legal body accused the Green MSP of an 'egregious breach' of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, which states that MSPs 'must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary.' Chapman has been defiant, saying that she appeared at the rally not in her capacity as deputy convenor but as an MSP representing her trans and non-binary constituents.
Otago Daily Times
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Case considered existing law, not current policy
Alexander Maine explains what the UK Supreme Court gender ruling means in practice. The Supreme Court's decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers will mean changes in how trans people in the UK access services and single-sex spaces. In the highly anticipated judgement announced April 17, the court ruled that the definition of "sex", "man" and "woman" in the Equality Act refers to "biological sex". It found that this does not include those who hold a gender recognition certificate (trans people who have had their chosen gender legally recognised). In simple terms, "women" does not include transgender women. It is important to note that the court's remit was focused on interpretation of existing laws, not creating policy. The court affirmed that trans people should not be discriminated against, nor did they intend to provide a definition of sex or gender outside of the application of the Equality Act. The prime minister has said he welcomes the "real clarity" brought by the ruling. But while it may bring some legal clarity, questions remain about the practical implementation. The judgement also raises new questions about the operation of the Gender Recognition Act, and what it now means to hold a gender recognition certificate. The gender-critical feminist group For Women Scotland challenged the Scottish government's guidance on the operation of the Equality Act in relation to a Scottish law that sets targets for increasing the proportion of women on public boards. The definition of a "woman" for the purposes of that law included trans women who had undergone, or were proposing to undergo, gender reassignment. The issue that the court had to address was whether a person with a full gender recognition certificate (GRC) which recognises that their gender is female, is a "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The Act gives protection to people who are at risk of unlawful discrimination. The court's decision was that the meaning of "sex" was biological and so references in the Act to "women" and "men" did not, therefore, apply to trans women or trans men who hold GRCs. Prior to the ruling, there were contested views as to whether trans people could access certain single-sex spaces — some of the most contentious being prisons, bathrooms and domestic abuse shelters. The ruling does not require services to exclude trans people from all single-sex spaces. It does, however, clarify that if a service operates a single-sex space, for example a gym changing room, then exclusion is based on biological sex and not legal sex. Neither the court nor the government has said how "biological sex" would be defined or proven. A service provider may operate a single-sex space on the basis of privacy or safety of users. To base this on biological sex must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim — for example, the safety of women in a group for abuse survivors. This means that service providers may still operate trans-inclusive policies, but they may open themselves to legal challenge. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 introduced gender recognition certificates (GRCs), which certify that a person's legal gender is different from their assigned gender at birth. A trans person can apply for a GRC in order to change their gender on their birth certificate. For legal purposes, they are then recognised as their acquired gender. The ruling does not strike down or affect the operation of the Gender Recognition Act. But it does give the impression that the GRA — and holding a GRC — is now less effective. In order to be granted a GRC, a person must show that they have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years and that they intend to live in that gender until death. Their application must be approved by two doctors, but — in what was a world-first at the time it was introduced — does not require any medical transition. The Supreme Court states that trans people (with or without a GRC) will still be protected from discrimination. Sex and gender reassignment are both protected characteristics under the Equality Act. This means that trans people may still rely on the law to protect them from direct or indirect discrimination levelled at them on the basis of being trans, or because of their perceived sex. — Alexander Maine is a senior law lecturer, City St George's, University of London.
Indian Express
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Opinion What the UK can learn from India about trans rights and inclusive feminism
On April 16, the UK Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, clarifying that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer exclusively to biological sex assigned at birth. This interpretation allows organisations to lawfully exclude transgender women from single-sex spaces — such as hospital wards, shelters, and sports categories — even if they hold Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs). Given the scope of the Equality Act, the ruling carries far-reaching implications for trans people in the UK. This judgment is political in nature — it reverses hard-won protections and significantly affects how trans women access public spaces. Many trans people fear increased vulnerability in an already transphobic and patriarchal society. It is worth noting that anti-discrimination laws in the UK and India are structured quite differently. India does not have a comprehensive anti-discrimination law; constitutional rights are largely enforceable only against the state. However, certain provisions — such as the abolition of untouchability or prohibition of child labour — apply horizontally to private individuals. Article 15(2), for instance, ensures that no citizen can be denied access to shops, restaurants, hotels, or places of public entertainment on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. This horizontal application can, at times, clash with the freedom of association, where individuals claim the liberty to exclude others based on personal conscience. While anti-discrimination bills have been proposed in India, none have been enacted. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court clarified in Kaushal Kishor v State of UP (2023) that constitutional silence on the horizontal application of rights should not be mistaken for prohibition — the state has a duty to protect citizens' rights and interests. In the UK, the enthusiasm expressed by petitioners over the exclusion of trans women reveals much about the prevailing social climate. For example, many argue that allowing trans women to participate in women's sports is unfair. This 'common-sense' stance, often grounded in a narrow view of biology, reflects deep-seated prejudices. This issue was brought home to me by the Ultimate Frisbee team at the National Law School in Bengaluru, where the sport is played in a gender-inclusive format. Curious, I turned to the work of Payoshni Mitra, an internationally recognised athlete rights activist who has campaigned against invasive sex-testing in sports. Mitra and her associates advocate a transformative approach to sports policy — one that affirms trans, intersex, and gender-diverse athletes instead of framing inclusion and fairness as mutually exclusive. Their work proposes four guiding principles: Lead with inclusion, decentre regulatory science, invest in community and youth sport, and double down on gender equity. Zooming out, we must ask: Why are some feminists advocating the exclusion of trans people from the category of 'woman'? Feminist movements of the 1970s and 1980s helped us understand gender as a social construct and opened space for alternative forms of care, community, and resistance to binary thinking. So how did some radical feminists — many of them lesbian — become vocal opponents of trans inclusion, especially in the US and UK? In her essay 'On Liking Women' (2018), Andrea Long Chu challenges the idea that this is simply a generational divide between older second-wave feminists and younger queer activists. Trans-exclusionary feminists, she argues, are often highly networked and active online, with a 'fascinating relationship to trolling.' Their insistence on defining gender strictly in terms of sex assigned at birth ignores the diversity of gender experience. Chu points out that trans women are not aspiring to become women — they are women. Reassignment surgeries are not only personal choices to feel comfortable in their body, but also about making universal claims on womanhood. In India, feminists have largely refrained from excluding trans people from the category of 'woman.' Since the 1980s, the 'women question' has remained open-ended and contested. Across national autonomous women's conferences and women's studies forums, a singular or normative definition of 'woman' has been consistently challenged. As a result, the category has remained inclusive and self-reflective. Feminists have also shown that under colonial law, 'woman' was never a uniform legal subject. In the revised edition of her landmark work Women and Colonial Law: A Feminist Social History (2025), Janaki Nair shows that women in India have always been internally differentiated by caste, class, region, and ethnicity. Legal discrimination does not impact all women equally. Feminists in India have often had ambivalent relationships with the law; some groups have questioned feminist involvement in pursuing criminalisation and punishment, seeking alternative modes of engagement and resistance. Cultural historians, too, have highlighted how trans identities in India are often shaped not by law but by regional cultures and ritual practices. As Gayatri Reddy shows in With Respect to Sex (2005), hijra identity in South India cannot be reduced to legal categories like 'third gender'. Many hijras understand themselves through moral economies of izzat (honour), memories of religious importance, and past roles at the tomb of Prophet Mohammed. The bonds of friendship between feminist queer people is apparent in Bengaluru, where trans persons — otherwise marginalised in public — have led queer mobilisation and have shaped the imagination and conscience of queer communities. Recently, I had the good fortune of documenting a series of 'townhalls' or open discussions organised by a non-funded queer peer group called All Sorts of Queer (ASQ) in Bengaluru, a 10-year-old, non-funded collective that began as a group for lesbian, bisexual, and transmasculine people assigned female at birth. Over time, it expanded to explicitly include non-binary individuals assigned female at birth. Recently, in response to questions about belonging and direction, ASQ hosted a series of 'townhall' discussions — online and offline — to reflect on identity, inclusion, and collective ethics. Rather than react to anonymous online criticism, the group chose dialogue, openness, and risk as a way to preserve trust and safety within the community. At a time when exclusion is often framed as protection, these collective practices of reflection, care, and solidarity remind us that the feminist and queer project has always been about expanding, not narrowing, the possibilities of belonging.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Court ruling leaves sports bodies with ‘no excuses' on trans rules, says charity
Sports bodies now have 'no excuses' for continuing to allow transgender women to compete in female categories after a landmark ruling by the UK's Supreme Court, a human rights charity has said. Wednesday's ruling found that a gender recognition certificate does not change a trans person's legal sex under the 2010 Equality Act, with Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge insisting the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Act referred to 'a biological woman' and 'biological sex'. A number of sports' UK governing bodies, including athletics, cricket, rugby league and rugby union, have already adopted policies banning athletes born male or who have gone through male puberty from female events. Some sports, however – including football – still allow trans women to compete against and alongside biological women, provided they meet reduced testosterone levels. The Football Association recently updated its existing transgender and non-binary inclusion policy which included adding a formal process allowing it to exercise ultimate discretion to refuse or remove eligibility to players on grounds of safety or fairness. Judgment has been given this morning in the matter of For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) UKSC 2024/0042: — UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) April 16, 2025 Fiona McAnena, the director of campaigns at Sex Matters, told the PA news agency on Wednesday: 'There are now no excuses for sports governing bodies that are still letting trans-identifying men into the women's category. 'The judges mentioned fairness in sport this morning. The law was always 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. 'It's neither of those: it's essential for fairness and safety for everyone female.' The 88-page Supreme Court ruling included a section devoted to the interpretation of Section 195 of the Equality Act, which provides an exemption allowing competitors be excluded from a 'gender-affected' sport or activity based on their sex. The ruling states: 'We consider that this provision (Section 195) is, again, plainly predicated on biological sex, and may be unworkable if a certificated sex interpretation is required.'
