In a landmark ruling, the UK supreme court has found that, under the Equality Act 2010, “sex” means biological sex – an unambiguous legal position with profoundly ambiguous social consequences. In doing so, the bench overruled the Scottish courts and curbed devolved lawmaking. Crucially, the court said that a gender recognition certificate (GRC) doesn’t change someone’s sex under equality legislation. The judgment offers what many policymakers – including Sir Keir Starmer – crave: clarity. Amid the fog of culture wars, it was a moment of legal lucidity.
Many women’s rights advocates saw the ruling as a firm defence of sex-based rights, especially where privacy from those perceived as male feels essential. A great number of trans people felt devastated by a judgment they fear will be weaponised. Its impact depends on norms, discretion and politics: trans women can still compete with women in football, but not athletics. The domestic violence charity Refuge says its support for trans women won’t change. The legal view may be clear, but how it plays out in practice is anything but.
