Another Stone In The Road

Before I provide any analysis on the ruling given by the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) on the legal definition of a woman, I want to acknowledge that I am relatively unlikely to face the repercussions of the UKSC’s decision. Thus, although I have invested a great amount of effort in researching the topic, and believe it is important to reach as many people as possible with this message, my fundamental detachment from the issues at stake may leave my analysis wanting. For coverage and commentary on transgender individuals’ position in the UK legal system in the wake of the UKSC’s ruling, I recommend activist Charlie Cragg’s interview on Channel 4, as well as her longform podcast with Politics JOE’s Ava Santina and Gay Star News’ Conor Cark. Similarly, I suggest those interested in following this topic further also watch Helena (@NoJusticeMTG on YouTube) give her perspective on the implications of the UKSC’s decision on Novara Media Live, and take a look through TransActual’s website for more information on trans rights in the UK from those affected.

On Wednesday the 16th of April 2025, the UKSC determined that the definition of a woman under equality law would be based on her biological sex. Under the 2010 Equality Act therefore, it is only those women who were classed ‘biologically female’ at birth which are protected from discrimination as women. In his announcement of the decision taken by the supreme court, Judge Lord Hodge emphasised that despite the ruling, transgender people will still be under "protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender".

Reactions to the ruling have been varied, and range from absolute elation at the supposed return of ‘common sense’, to an anxiety over the implications of this case for the safety of transgender people in the UK. Given how little time has passed since the UKSC came to its decision, the implications of this ruling remain largely unclear. A main source of this confusion is the apparent contradiction with the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, which under Article 9.1 determines that ‘Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender’. Commentators have argued that nothing much has actually changed, given that women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) could always be excluded from female-only spaces given proper justification on a case-by-case basis. Legal scholars have noted however, that although transgender women could always be excluded from female-only spaces, the UKSC’s ruling means that in this case, a trans woman can no longer claim to be discriminated against on the basis of her identity as a woman, even if she has a GRC. 

Overall, it is too soon to tell the full extent of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling. Immediate consequences were felt by the NHS with respect to their policies on single-sex hospital wards, changing rooms, and domestic refuges. When asked whether the Equality and Human Rights Court would pursue the NHS if it failed to enact changes in the wake of the Supreme Court Ruling, Baroness Falkner replied ‘yes we will’. Similarly, NHS Fife declared they would ‘carefully consider’ the implications of the ruling, in relation to their suspension of nurse Sandie Peggie, after she complained about having to share a changing room with transgender medic Dr Beth Upton. As case law evolves in the years to come, and the implications of this decision are fully realised, one thing is clear, the British legal system does not think transgender women have the same rights as cisgender women.

It became clear soon after the ruling on the 16th, that despite the particular origins of the case as it pertained to the Scottish Government’s Recognition of women with a GRC for the purposes of quotas on their public boards, individuals celebrating the outcome perceived it as a win for women’s safety. Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland (FWS), the group that brought the case to the Supreme Court in the first place, said on Wednesday that: ‘sex is real, and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women’. Similarly, J.K Rowling posted on X that "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". Given how central this concern seems to be for the FWS campaigners, and the supporters of the UKSC’s ruling, it is important to examine the veracity of the claim that allowing transgender women into women’s spaces would endanger so-called ‘biological women’.

Despite little explanation as to the ‘threat’ trans women pose in female-only spaces, it is safe to assume that this concern is one tied primarily with the threat of violence, specifically sexual violence. Based on the signs held up by FWS members outside the supreme court, the logic seems to be that if you allow transgender women in female-only environments such as female toilets, these women, who FWS activists do not consider women but men pretending to be women, will take advantage of their proximity to cisgender women in a vulnerable space and sexually assault them. The Supreme Court Ruling has thus been understood on these grounds as a victory for women’s rights. Such activists claim they are now protected from men eager to commit sexual violence, who will now seemingly be stopped by the sign on the toilet door.

This hypothetical scenario is incompatible with the reality of sexual crimes in the UK, and reveals the underlying intentions of figures such as J.K Rowling in their supposed crusade for women’s rights. Sexual violence and rapes against women are repeatedly shown to be committed by an individual that the woman knows. In 86% of rape cases against women, the victim or survivor is raped by someone they know. In 50% of cases, the rape is carried out by an ex-partner. I do not wish to downplay the suffering of those women who have been sexually assaulted by strangers, and who are forced to live with that traumatic experience. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the largest physical threat to cisgender women is posed by transgender women who are strangers to them.

This position becomes increasingly untenable when sexual crimes against transgender women and individuals themselves are considered. Far from being mass perpetrators of sexual violence, the transgender community suffers the worst of abuse and sexual violence in society. Transgender people are twice as likely to be victims of crime, and 4 times more likely to be victims of violence and sexual abuse than cisgender people, with hate crimes against the trans community increasing by 56% in 2022 alone. Research has also indicated that between 62%-73% of transgender people have experienced harassment and violence because they were identified as trans. I feel uncomfortable rattling off a list of cold, detached figures to represent the daily, dehumanising abuse transgender people face in contemporary society, but it is fundamental to establish that the basis upon which campaigners have been celebrating the UKSC’s ruling is ludicrous. It is these individuals’ contention that transgender people would put themselves at the highest risk of being the victim of sexual violence and abuse, only to the aid of commit a sexual crime themselves.

Implicit to FWS and J.K Rowling’s position is also the trivialisation of the process transgender women must go through to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), or to transition in the first place. Firstly, on a more basic level, it is not exactly simple to acquire a GRC. One must first meet the eligibility criteria, which includes a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria, legal status as an adult, proof the individual has been living as their chosen gender for at least two years, and a statutory declaration the individual wishes to live as their preferred gender for the rest of their life. If an applicant does not have a gender dysphoria diagnosis from a registered medical practitioner, they must be able to prove they have been living as the gender they identify with for at least 6 years, and that they have gone through gender reassignment surgery. Then, the individual seeking a GRC must usually wait around 22 weeks, unless the Gender Recognition Panel requires more information, for their application to be approved or denied.

Similarly, the lived experience of transgender people, or those looking to transition, is far removed from a decision to be a different sex one day, and going through a few quick operations to embody that chosen sex. I absolutely acknowledge that I don’t, and will never, completely understand the lived experience of a trans person, but I am confident it is not akin to waking up one day, arbitrarily deciding you are the opposite sex, and putting on a wig or cutting your hair. Transgender women stuck on waiting lists for Gender Identity Clinics frequently describe their lives as a living hell, as they are denied the medical procedure that will make them feel comfortable in their own skin. Not to mention, these waiting lists have only been getting longer, with the average wait time for the first appointment at a clinic in the UK being over 5 years, unless individuals can afford the expensive private alternative. The extremely low rates of regret reported by transgender people after gender reassignment surgery, 0.47% in 2022, supports the view that the surgery has a profoundly positive impact on their lives. 

In short, with this as well as with the risk to the transgender community’s physical wellbeing, transgender people, in this case trans women, have bigger concerns than using their access to female-only spaces to assault cisgender women. I am not denying that there could be transgender women who could sexually assault cisgender women in female-only spaces, but this remains a hypothetical phenomenon without any solid evidence to support it.

Thus, if the UKSC’s ruling in favour of FWS does very little to protect women’s rights more so than they were already protected by the Equality Act of 2010, why is it being celebrated on these grounds, and why was it brought to the court in the first place? A far more consequential issue for the protection of women against sexual crime might be the appallingly low prosecution and conviction levels for rape cases in the UK, at a time when there is an all-time high number of such cases recorded by the police. Similarly, as was highlighted above, the vast majority of women are sexually assaulted by someone they know, and these instances of rape very often go unreported. Campaigning for greater prosecution rates in the Crown Courts, or supporting campaigns to destigmatise speaking out about one’s history of sexual abuse would be far more effective approaches to protect women from sexual violence.

The truth is, individuals like J.K Rowling don’t actually care very much about women. This was made evident by Rowling’s vicious social media attacks against Libyan and Taiwanese boxers Imane Khalif and Li Yu-ting, both born women with no evidence having ever been published proving otherwise, during the Paris Olympics in 2024. Those in Rowling’s camp relishing this supposed victory care first about reinforcing their irrational distaste for transgender people, and only advertise their feminism as a front to disguise their bigotry. I rarely outright accuse individuals of bigotry, as I think the overuse of such terms devalues their impact, and allows those for whom the terms would apply to dodge criticism too easily. In this case, no other characterisation will do.

Freedom from discrimination has never been a simple process, and persecuted minorities everywhere have faced repeated setbacks on their journey to emancipation. The transgender community is the group that society is currently having the hardest time accepting. This court ruling, as well as the people celebrating it as a win for ‘common sense’, are just stones in the road to their liberation, and the day they will be finally allowed to live in peace.

Image: Flickr/Alisdare Hickson

Licence.

No image changes made.