'I'm so proud': JK Rowling hails Supreme Court definition of 'biological sex' as charities slam 'harmful' ruling

16 April 2025, 13:58 | Updated: 16 April 2025, 19:25

Women’s rights campaigner and author JK Rowling said the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman under the Equality Act has “protected the rights of women and girls across the UK”.

In a judgment on Wednesday, five Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled in FWS’s favour, finding that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act “refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.

Ms Rowling, who has been outspoken on gender issues, has praised campaigners who took the case to the Supreme Court.

She wrote on X: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court." She added: “I’m so proud to know you.”

Campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) brought a series of challenges – including to the UK’s highest court – over the definition of “woman” and whether someone with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under anti-discrimination legislation.

However, Jane Fae, director of advocacy group TransActual told LBC this has reversed progress and it won't be the end of the matter.

Read more: Trans women are not legally women: Supreme Court defines women by 'biological sex' in landmark ruling

Read more: The Supreme Court is deciding what a 'woman' is - but it is obvious to toddlers

She said: "20 years ago the UK government was being taken to court on a regular basis because it was denying human rights to trans people.

"It was losing case after case, and what happening in response to that was the gender recognition act.

"They've now put its back to where we were because what this ruling has effectively done has excluded trans people from large swathes of society."

'Harmful'

However, LGBT Foundation criticised the move saying they are "deeply concerned".

They said: "Today is a challenging day, and we are deeply concerned at the widespread, harmful implications of today's Supreme Court ruling.

"As LGBT + organisations across the country, we stand in solidarity with trans, intersex and non-binary folk as we navigate from here.

"We need to take the time to digest the full implications of the Ruling and to understand what this will mean on both legal and practical levels, and will say more over the coming weeks.

"It is a complex Ruling but it is important to be reminded that the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Equality Act protects trans people against discrimination, based on Gender Reassignment, and will continue to do so.

"We will work across the LGBT+ sector, and with other organisations, to provide as much clarity as soon as is practicable. We will never stop working towards equal rights for all LGBT+ people."

James O’Brien debates LBC caller over ‘biological sex’ ruling

Transgender women with a gender recognition certificate can be excluded from single-sex spaces if “proportionate”, the Supreme Court has ruled as the Government said the decision brought “clarity and confidence” for women and service providers.

The justices said that this interpretation of the law does not cause disadvantage to trans people, who were described as a “potentially vulnerable group”.

In an 88-page judgment, justices Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler said that while the word “biological” does not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman”.

The justices, supported by Lords Reed and Lloyd-Jones, later said that if “sex” did not only mean biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces including changing rooms, homeless hostels and medical services would face “practical difficulties”.

They said: “If as a matter of law, a service provider is required to provide services previously limited to women also to trans women with a GRC, even if they present as biological men, it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men and who also look like biological men.”

The justices added: “Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.”

They later said that while there were “carve-outs” in the Equality Act for single sex spaces which permit what would usually be seen as gender reassignment discrimination, there was no similar exception for people with a GRC.

“The intention must have been to allow for the exclusion of those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, regardless of the possession of a GRC, in order to maintain the provision of single or separate services for women and men as distinct groups in appropriate circumstances,” the justices continued.

The justices said that if sex had its “biological meaning” then service providers could separate male and female users into different groups, such as separate hostels for homeless people.

They added: “If sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service … would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status.”

Obtaining a GRC requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, having lived in the acquired gender for at least two years and an intention to live in that gender for the rest of the applicant’s life.

Following the decision, a UK Government spokesman said: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.

“This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.

“Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government.”