Nicola Sturgeon says trans lives could be 'almost unliveable' after Supreme Court ruling

6 May 2025, 13:49 | Updated: 6 May 2025, 14:07

Nicola Sturgeon has broken her silence on the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex, claiming it risks making “the lives of trans people unliveable” and said the law may need to be changed.

Scotland’s former First Minister, a fierce advocate of trans rights and who had attempted to make the self-identification of gender the law through reforming the gender recognition process, also rejected the suggestion that the court’s decision showed her government had acted unlawfully.

Ms Sturgeon was in the Scottish Parliament on the day John Swinney is set to outline his latest Programme for Government - which has ditched two controversial pieces of legislation affecting women and the LGBT community: a misogyny bill, and another to ban conversion therapy practices.

She has not been seen in Holyrood since the Supreme Court ruling, and has previously just told reporters “you know my view” when asked about the judgment.

Today though she said that she accepted the Supreme Court was the ultimate jurisdiction, but that it “remained to be seen” if the judgment “allows trans people to live their lives with dignity and in a safe and accepted way.”

She added: “I think that remains to be seen. I think some of the early indications would raise concerns, in my mind, that we are at risk of making the lives of trans people almost unliveable. And I don't think the majority of people in the country would want to see that - it certainly doesn't make a single woman any safer to do that, because the threat to women, as I think we all know, comes from predatory and abusive men.

“So that's my view. Nobody can gainsay the Supreme Court. So what it says is a statement of the law as it stands. It's not a moral judgment. It's not a statement of what the law should be. That's not the role of any court. That's the role of politicians and governments.

“I've spent my life campaigning for the protection and the advancement of women's rights, and I bow to nobody on that. But I also think it's really important that the tiny, tiny number of people who are trans in this country get to live with dignity and in a way that they feel safe and accepted in society for who they are. I've never believed, and I never will believe, that those two things are inevitably in tension.

“So the question now is, how does the Supreme Court judgment, which is an interpretation of the meaning of one particular act of parliament, the 2010, Equality Act, how does that translate into practice?”

She said that she had read the judgment and it was not “inevitable” that the lives of trans people will be “impossibly difficult”, but added “I think there is a danger that the interpretations that some are putting on that will lead to that, and if that is the case, then yes, it would be my view that the law as it stands, needs to be looked at.”

Asked if her government had been acting unlawfully by allowing transwomen to self-identify into women’s single sex spaces and services, when as the Supreme Court ruling showed, that was not the law, she rejected the notion.

“I don't accept that. I absolutely accept the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority, but I don't think it is just as simple as taking a judgment about the interpretation of one piece of legislation and reaching that conclusion. Other people, of course, can speak for themselves.”

Ms Sturgeon was also pressed on whether she owed an apology to the women who took the case to the Supreme Court, campaign group For Women Scotland, women whose views she had previously dismissed as “not valid”, and also former SNP MP Joanna Cherry.

“The views of all opinions were taken account of in the run up to Parliament, not the SNP, but Parliament as a whole, with support from, I think across all parties, for that legislation [gender recognition reform]” she said.

“The time taken to get to the point of decision on that was probably longer than for any other bill, and different people had their say, and then parliament decided. I recognise the different views on this. I've always actually recognised the different views but I think it's important that respect runs in both directions.

"And for every woman that I know or who contacts me, and I appreciate that that is not every woman in the country, for every one that contacts me or who I know personally with concerns about this, there are probably another two who have a different view.

“So for any group or any individual, me included, to say that their view is the only view that carries weight, or the only view that has support, I just think is fundamentally wrong.”

On the misogyny bill being dropped, she said that she would not “give a running commentary” on government decisions but said she believed it was still “committed to action against misogyny.”

But she added: “I do think there would be an irony if a court action that was purportedly, and I use that word deliberately, purportedly about protecting women ends up seeing a halt to a misogyny bill which is actually about protecting women.”

Reacting to her statements, Scottish Conservative deputy leader Rachael Hamilton MSP accused Nicola Sturgeon of "betraying women" and "dividing Scotland with her reckless gender self-ID policy."

She added: "She still can’t bring herself to apologise.

“For years she arrogantly dismissed the concerns of women and girls that their rights and safety were being sacrificed, as she parroted the views of extremist gender activists and ensured they were adopted across Scotland’s public sector.

“Gender self-ID was always nonsense – and now the Supreme Court has declared it unlawful too.

“Nicola Sturgeon needs to hold her hands up and say sorry to the women of Scotland. But she and the SNP never admit to their mistakes or accept accountability when they get things badly wrong.”

Joanna Cherry KC, who was part of the Scottish Lesbians group which intervened in the Supreme Court case on the matter of same-sex orientation said that Nicola Sturgeon was "rewriting history".

"To say that the Supreme Court judgment means we are “at risk of making the lives of trans people almost unliveable” is the sort of fatuous hyperbole that she has indulged in in relation to these issues from the outset and it is deeply irresponsible for any politician to so misrepresent the judgment," she said.

"It’s a simply not true to say that all opinions were taken account of in this debate. She branded the views of those of us who pointed out the implications for the rights of women, including lesbians, as “not valid” and she called us transphobes bigots, racists and homophobes."

She added: ‘Her snide suggestion that the Supreme Court judgment has stymied the Misogyny Bill has no basis in fact unless of course she is referring to the fact that misogyny was going to be defined as including hatred against men.

"She seems also to be forgetting that it was her Government that prevented sex being included as a protected characteristic in the Hate Crime Bill.

"Nicola Sturgeon is trying to rewrite history in relation to these matters, but those of us who fought her every inch of the way in her attack on the rights of women and LGB people will not let her do so."