Latest news with #GenderRecognitionCertificate
The Herald Scotland
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Scottish Government ordered to pay For Women Scotland costs
For Women Scotland (FWS) has previously said it expects to recoup about £250,000 of £417,000 it spent on the case in costs. READ MORE Scottish Government spent £374k on gender court battle Parliament defends 'inclusive' trans toilet ban after MSPs and staff complain 'Not divisive': Tory candidate in Hamilton by-election defends Orange Order ties In a unanimous decision last month, the Supreme Court ruled that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. The justices concluded that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. The decision marked the culmination of a legal dispute that began in 2017, when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, aimed at boosting female representation. The law was amended to include trans women — including those without a GRC — as 'women'. FWS challenged this, arguing that the definition conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women. After an initial defeat, the group won on appeal in 2022, with judges ruling that biological sex could not be redefined. The Scottish Government then revised its guidance to state that GRC holders change their legal sex. Read the exclusive follow up to this story from Andrew Learmonth: FWS launched a second legal challenge, maintaining that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. Although the Outer House and the Inner House ruled in favour of Scottish Ministers, the Supreme Court ultimately overturned those judgments. The court order explicitly states that 'a person whose acquired gender is the female gender by virtue of a Gender Recognition Certificate issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not come within the definition of 'woman' for the purposes of sections 11 and 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010'. It adds the same clarification regarding trans men, before specifying that 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 'refers only to biological women'. The order further states that the Scottish Government is 'liable for the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court, to include the costs of one leading and one junior counsel, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed'. It is also responsible for the expenses of FWS. A previous freedom of information request by the Conservative Party revealed that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated with the judicial review brought by FWS. Writing on X, former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC said the order 'underlines clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success'.
Scottish Sun
5 days ago
- Politics
- Scottish Sun
Scottish Government ordered to pay costs after landmark gender ruling over definition of ‘woman'
It comes after a three-year battle from feminist campaigners FOOT THE BILL Scottish Government ordered to pay costs after landmark gender ruling over definition of 'woman' THE Scottish Government has been ordered to cough up costs to feminist campaigners after losing a high-profile legal fight over the definition of a woman. Taxpayers are set to foot the bill, with For Women Scotland (FWS) expecting to recover around £250,000 of the £417,000 spent on the gruelling three-year court battle. Advertisement 4 Marion Calder, right, and Susan Smith, left, from For Women Scotland, celebrate outside after the U.K. Supreme Court Credit: AP 4 A court order has ruled the Scottish Government must pay FWS's costs and expenses Credit: Rex 4 The decision has sparked outrage amongst transgender communities Credit: Lesley Martin 2025 A court order issued on Tuesday confirmed the payout, which covers expenses from both the Court of Session and the UK Supreme Court. Last month, FWS emerged victorious when five Supreme Court judges unanimously ruled that the Equality Act defines a 'woman' as based on biological sex – a major blow to the Scottish Government's stance. The ruling also confirmed that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not alter a person's sex under the Equality Act. The legal saga began in 2017 when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, designed to boost female representation. Advertisement The legislation controversially included trans women – even those without a GRC – under the definition of 'women.' Outraged by the move, FWS argued the definition clashed with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women. Despite an initial defeat, they won on appeal in 2022, with judges declaring that biological sex could not be redefined. The Scottish Government revised its guidance, while claiming GRC holders change their legal sex. Advertisement FWS made another legal challenge, insisting that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers strictly to biological sex – a position now upheld by the Supreme Court. Today's order states that the Scottish Government is 'liable for the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court, to include the costs of one leading and one junior counsel, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed'. It is also responsible for the expenses of FWS. The Scottish Conservative Party previously revealed with a Freedom of Information request that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated FWS's judicial review. Advertisement And former SNP MP Joanna Cherry wrote on X, said the order: 'underlines the clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success'.
Daily Record
5 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Record
Scottish Government ordered to pay costs after landmark gender ruling
A court order, which was issued on Tuesday, confirms that taxpayers will cover costs incurred at both the Supreme Court and the Court of Session. The Scottish Government has been ordered to pay costs and expenses to For Women Scotland after they brought a landmark legal case over the definition of a woman to the UK's highest court. A court order, which was issued on Tuesday, confirms that taxpayers will cover costs incurred at both the Supreme Court and the Court of Session. Previously the campaign group said it expected to recoup about £250,000 of £417,000 it spent on the case in costs. The Supreme Court ruled that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act in a unanimous decision last month. They concluded that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. For Woman Scotland revealed a screenshot of the court order - which marked the culmination of a legal dispute that began in 2017 - in a post on X. The dispute was sparked when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, aimed at boosting female representation. The law was amended to include trans women — including those without a GRC — as 'women'. For Women Scotland challenged this. They argued that the definition conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women. The group, after an initial defeat, won on appeal in 2022 as judges ruled that biological sex could not be redefined. The Scottish Government then revised its guidance to state that GRC holders change their legal sex - however, For Women Scotland launched a second legal challenge, maintaining that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. The Outer House and the Inner House ruled in favour of Scottish Ministers - but the Supreme Court ultimately overturned those judgments. The court order explicitly states that 'a person whose acquired gender is the female gender by virtue of a Gender Recognition Certificate issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not come within the definition of 'woman' for the purposes of sections 11 and 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010'. It adds the same clarification regarding trans men, before specifying that 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 'refers only to biological women'. The order further states that the Scottish Government is 'liable for the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court, to include the costs of one leading and one junior counsel, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed'. It is also responsible for the expenses of For Women Scotland. Writing on X, former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC said: "Final court order underlines clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success. Now indeed the rights of women (and LGB rights) 'merit some attention'." The Conservative Party previously revealed through a freedom of information request that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated with the judicial review brought by the campaign group.
The National
25-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
MSPs express 'deep concern' over Scottish Parliament trans toilet ban
Nearly 50 Scottish parliamentarians, including 16 MSPs, signed the letter to the Scottish Parliament's corporate body, the Guardian reports, after it set out its interim position earlier this month in response to the Supreme Court's recent ruling. In April, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act 2010 a woman is defined by 'biological sex' and does not include a transgender woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This went against how the law had been interpreted across public and private bodies in the UK for the past 20 years. READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon says Supreme Court ruling 'massively misinterpreted' It led to Alison Johnstone, Holyrood's Presiding Officer, to issue guidance stating that toilets designated as male or female will now be interpreted as meaning biological sex. Johnstone said that the parliament will increase its exisiting provision of gender-neutral toilets, open to anyone, to ensure 'confidence, privacy and dignity' for visitors and staff. The letter, however, argues that Holyrood has misinterpreted the court judgment, based on legal advice from the Good Law Project. 'The designation suggested in the guidance issued is that male and female spaces will be applied 'by biological sex',' the letter states. (Image: Russell Cheyne/PA Wire) 'We would argue that the application of this is not only deeply invasive – it raises immediate questions about enforcement. We ask, non-rhetorically, on what basis are staff expected to prove their sex to use a toilet?' This approach 'risks exposing [trans people], and anyone who may be gender non-conforming, to humiliation, harassment or worse – all under the guise of 'clarity', the letter adds. The letter is now available online for other MSPs and parliamentary staff to sign. Former ministers Elena Whitham and Emma Roddick, as well as depute SNP leader Keith Brown, have signed the letter. READ MORE: JK Rowling to fund gender-critical women's cases against employers Scottish Greens co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater, as well as Scottish LibDem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton have also signed the letter. Former SNP MP Hannah Bardell organised the letter working with the Good Law project, said she expected more politicians and staff to sign up. 'I've spoken to many MSPs who feel huge concern about this decision. I hope this can move the debate forward and that the corporate body can rethink their decision just like other organisations have done,' Bardell said. 'It's very sad that the question of how trans people live their lives has become so toxic that the very people who represent them feel nervous about signing a letter like this.' Other parliaments in the UK, Westminster, Stormont and the Senedd, did not change their policies. While interim guidance was published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), official guidance is now expected to be delayed until after the summer while consultation is undertaken. The interim guidance banned transgender people from using the bathroom of their acquired gender, and was called 'authoritarian and cruel'. A Scottish Parliament spokesperson said the current position could be changed in light of an updated code of practice from the EHRC. A spokesperson said: 'We will therefore consult with staff, their trade union representatives, members and other stakeholders, including equalities groups who work regularly and closely with people with protected equalities characteristics, at an appropriate point.'
The National
25-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
JK Rowling to fund gender-critical women's cases against employers
The Harry Potter author, who donated to For Women Scotland's gofundme to challenge the definition of gender under the Equality Act in the Supreme Court, has set up a fund to help gender critical women to pursue action against employers and public services. The J.K. Rowling Women's Fund (JKRWF) says it will provide funding to give women 'the means and confidence to bring to justice cases that make legal precedents, force policy change, and make positive contributions to women's lives in the future'. READ MORE: Fears 'rigged' Scottish Labour voting system boxes out left-wing MSPs It sets out a checklist for those applying, such as fighting a tribunal because of 'their expressed beliefs' or being 'forced to comply with unreasonable inclusion policies' in single sex spaces. The fund's website sets out that it won't hire a lawyer for those hoping to make a legal challenge, so those applying must 'already have sought legal representation, and have a clear desired outcome to your case'. On social media, Rowling said she would not be accepting public donations to the fund as a 'private fund is the most efficient, streamlined way for me to do this'. (Image: JKRWF) 'Lots of people are offering to contribute, which I truly appreciate, but there are many other women's rights organisations that could do with the money, so donate away, just not to me!' she added. Rowling has a net worth of around £945 million and was ranked the eighth wealthiest person in Scotland earlier this month. It is understood the fund has been operating since the end of 2024. Rowling celebrated the judgment in the FWS Supreme Court case from her private yacht, and was pictured smoking a cigar. She captioned the photograph: 'I love it when a plan comes together'. In April, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act 2010 a woman is defined by 'biological sex' and does not include a transgender woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This decision went against how the law had been interpreted across public and private bodies in the UK for the past 20 years. Trans women were then banned from playing women's football and cricket. In the weeks following the judgment, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) released interim guidance that banned transgender people from using the bathroom of their acquired gender. This was described as 'cruel' and 'segregation'. We told how former first minister Nicola Sturgeon said the Supreme Court ruling had been 'massively misinterpreted'. It followed similar comments made by Lady Hale, the first female president of the Supreme Court, now retired. Rowling has been publicly critical of Sturgeon, once being pictured wearing a t-shirt that described the Glasgow MSP as a 'destroyer of women's rights'.
