header-logo header-logo

27 June 2025 / Zoë Chapman
Issue: 8122 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights , Equality , Public , Diversity
printer mail-detail

Trans rights wronged?

224105
Did the outdated framework of the Equality Act 2010 force the Supreme Court’s hand in its binary interpretation of ‘sex’? Zoë Chapman unpacks the implications for trans rights following For Women Scotland
  • The UK Supreme Court has ruled that ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) refer strictly to biological sex, excluding trans individuals from these categories in legal terms.
  • While trans people retain some protections under EqA 2010, the judgment effectively permits blanket exclusions from single-sex spaces, undermining their legal recognition and rights.
  • The ruling exposes EqA 2010’s outdated binary framework, prompting calls for inclusive updates that reflect modern understandings of sex and gender.

On 16 April this year, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. The appeal was concerned with establishing the correct interpretation of the words ‘woman’, ‘man’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). From the outset, the Supreme Court was at pains to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll