Facts of the Case

The case concerns the interpretation of the term “woman” under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which aims to improve the representation of women in leadership positions on public boards by requiring that 50% of non-executive board members be women. In April 2022, the Scottish Government issued guidance interpreting the term “woman” to include trans women who have obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. According to Section 9(1) of that Act, once a GRC is granted, a person’s acquired gender becomes their legal gender “for all purposes.” Based on this, the Scottish Ministers assumed that such individuals should be counted as “women” under the 2018 Act.

This interpretation was challenged by For Women Scotland Ltd, a feminist advocacy organization, which argued that the Scottish Government had unlawfully expanded the definition of “woman” beyond its original scope. They contended that the definition of “woman” must align with the Equality Act 2010, where “sex” is a protected characteristic and understood in terms of biological sex. Since “equal opportunities” is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998, For Women Scotland claimed that the Scottish Parliament and Government had acted beyond their legal authority by altering the meaning of “sex” through devolved legislation. The legal dispute eventually reached the United Kingdom Supreme Court, which was tasked with determining whether trans women with GRCs fall within the statutory meaning of “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and whether the 2018 Act, as interpreted by the Scottish Government, exceeded the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence.

Contentions of the Parties

The appellant, For Women Scotland Ltd, argued that the term “woman” under Section 11 of the Equality Act 2010 must be understood as referring exclusively to biological females. They claimed that by including trans women with GRCs in the category of “woman,” the Scottish Government had effectively redefined the meaning of the protected characteristic of “sex.” This, they argued, was not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament or Government, as “sex” and “equal opportunities” fall under the list of reserved matters within the Scotland Act 1998. Therefore, they contended that the guidance unlawfully modified the legal meaning of terms established by UK-wide legislation.

The Scottish Government, on the other hand, maintained that its guidance was lawful. It argued that under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, an individual who receives a GRC legally becomes the acquired gender for all legal purposes, and therefore, a trans woman should be treated as female. According to this view, trans women with GRCs fall within the category of “woman” as defined in both the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The Scottish Government’s position was that the guidance served the purpose of inclusivity and equality and did not overstep legislative boundaries.

Court’s Observations

The United Kingdom Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling delivered on April 16, 2025, by a five-judge bench comprising Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Rose, and Lady Simler, concluded that the term “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers solely to biological females. The Court observed that while the Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows a person to change their legal gender upon obtaining a GRC, this does not affect the biological interpretation of “sex” for the purposes of the Equality Act. Section 11 of the Act, which defines “sex” as male or female, was held to refer exclusively to biological sex, not gender identity or legal status conferred by a GRC.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that the Scottish Government’s guidance was incorrect in its interpretation. Since the Scottish Ministers had already accepted that the term “woman” in the 2018 Act must be interpreted consistently with its meaning in the Equality Act 2010, the Court held that the term cannot include trans women with GRCs. Therefore, the definition of “woman” in Section 2 of the 2018 Act is limited to biological women. However, the Court also concluded that, when interpreted in this biologically limited way, the 2018 Act remains within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as it does not infringe upon the reserved matter of equal opportunities.

Importantly, the Court acknowledged the need for diversity and inclusion in public appointments but clarified that the appointment of a trans woman with a GRC cannot count toward fulfilling the gender representation objective of achieving 50% female participation. The Court emphasized that its ruling does not prevent the appointment of trans individuals to public boards or diminish the importance of their representation, but rather deals strictly with the legal interpretation of who qualifies as a “woman” under existing UK legislation. The justices concluded that while trans people have a vital role in public life, their appointment does not legally satisfy the statutory requirement for female representation under the 2018 Act.

Credits: Adv. Deeksha Rai