 "UK court defines 'woman' as biological; JK Rowling, others applaud")
The UK Supreme Court has made a major decision: under the law, the word ‘woman’ means someone who is biologically female. This ruling, made on April 16, says that even if a transgender woman has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), she is not legally considered a ‘woman’ under the Equality Act 2010.
The case came from a fight between the Scottish government and the campaign group For Women Scotland. The Scottish government had said that trans women with GRCs could count as women on public boards. But For Women Scotland argued that this changed the legal meaning of ‘woman’ without Parliament’s approval.
The Supreme Court agreed. Five judges ruled that changing the meaning of ‘woman’ would make the Equality Act confusing and difficult to use. They said the law was written to protect groups based on biological sex — meaning people born male or female — because of the real disadvantages these groups face.
Justice Patrick Hodge wrote: “The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”
The court also stressed that transgender people are still protected under the Equality Act from discrimination because of gender reassignment. But this ruling makes a clear legal difference between biological sex and gender identity when it comes to things like single-sex spaces and services.
How the ruling was received
The Supreme Court’s decision sparked strong reactions across the UK and beyond.
Women’s rights activists and gender-critical feminists celebrated the verdict.
Debbie Hayton, a transgender teacher and well-known gender-critical voice, applauded the clarity the court provided. “I welcome this decision!,” she told Fox News.
For Women Scotland said it was “absolutely jubilant”, while tennis legend Martina Navratilova also expressed her support online, thanking “all who fought for this for years”.
Author JK Rowling, a key supporter of For Women Scotland, also welcomed the ruling, revealing that she had donated £70,000 to the group’s legal fund. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), she wrote, “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.”
In another post, she wrote “I love it when a plan comes together”. The post also caught Elon Musk’s attention who replied to it with fire emojis.
On the other side, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups voiced deep concern.
Stonewall and Scottish Trans warned the decision could severely restrict transgender women’s access to services like domestic violence shelters, hospital wards, and public spaces.
Vic Valentine, manager of Scottish Trans, said, “The judgment seems to have totally missed what matters to trans people – that we are able to live our lives, and be recognised, in line with who we truly are.”
Amnesty International UK called the ruling “disappointing”, warning it may create a “potentially concerning” environment for trans people, though they also emphasised that trans rights protections under the Equality Act remain intact.
What this verdict means
The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications for UK law and society.
Single-sex spaces, including changing rooms, domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centers, hospital wards, and women-only sporting events, can now more easily exclude trans women based on biological sex criteria.
The ruling also affects the governance of public bodies, preventing the inclusion of trans women in female-only board quotas in Scotland and potentially across the UK.
Employment law could also shift. Hannah Ford, a partner at law firm Stevens & Bolton, explained: “It is in one sense a triumph of sense over legal incoherency and legal fiction.”
However, campaigners are warning that it could lead to more discrimination cases if workplaces and service providers do not handle the changes carefully.
Politically, the verdict is likely to reignite debates in Westminster and Holyrood about whether the Equality Act 2010 needs to be rewritten. The Equality and Human Rights Commission had already suggested MPs had underestimated the law’s impact on women’s rights.
Scottish Trans had also urged calm after the ruling, posting on Bluesky, “There will be lots of commentary coming out quickly that is likely to deliberately overstate the impact that this decision is going to have on all trans people’s lives.”
[With agency inputs]