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Did the outdated framework of the Equality Act 2010 force the Supreme Court’s hand in its binary interpretation of ‘sex’?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  • The ruling exposes EqA 2010’s outdated binary framework, prompting calls for inclusive updates that reflect modern understandings of sex and gender.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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll