Alison Holt
Social affairs editor

The Supreme Court judgement on gender has brought clarity to a hotly disputed area of the law, but it is less clear how much difference it will make in everyday life.

There is already Equality Act guidance which allows for women only spaces, such as toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards in certain circumstances.

It says this could be for “reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety”.

The Supreme Court justices also emphasised that transgender people have existing protections against discrimination and harassment under the Act. And some who have gender recognition certificates, have another layer of legal protection.

Overall, it is not straightforward in practical terms, which means legal and public policy experts will now be trying to work out the implications.

So, while the judgment brings clarity on the law, the jury is still out on what day-to-day differences it will make.

Out of the legal arena and into the politicalpublished at 14:31 British Summer Time

14:31 BST

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent, at the Supreme Court

The law is drafted by politicians - and it can be changed at the stroke of a pen. The issue may now move out of the legal arena and back into the political one.

There had been some pressure on the UK government to clarify the Equality Act - which is Westminster legislation.

The court has handily done that for them, and UK ministers have welcomed the ruling. There may be more political pressure on the Scottish government, given it has lost this case.

For a long time, ministers have batted away questions about this case - such as, do they really believe in the legal points their lawyers are making? - by saying they can’t comment on live litigation.

They will have to go into a little more detail now, but I imagine this issue is still just about the last thing they want to talk about.

There had been some speculation a ruling like this could raise the prospect of ministers re-launching their attempts at gender reform at Holyrood.

But frankly there is not the political will in the John Swinney administration to ride into battle on this issue, as there was under his predecessor Nicola Sturgeon.

With a Holyrood election looming, there is no prospect of the first minister deciding to wade back into such a contentious debate.

But with For Women Scotland now hoping to use this ruling to hold his feet to fire when it comes to broader government policies and guidance, it is one he will need to address.

If you're just joining us, we're continuing to bring you reaction to the Supreme Court ruling today that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

"We are devastated, and in tears," says Jane Fae, director of the advocacy group TransActual UK - before telling the BBC's World At One programme that the judgement is like a "physical punch".

"What it feels like for pretty much every trans, non-binary person in the UK is that you'd like to exclude us wholesale from UK society. So today we're feeling very alone."

The judgement "opens up a can of worms", and at the moment it's not clear which spaces this applies to, Fae says. If the ruling means "any space that you might associate with women can now be used to exclude trans women... it means we can’t participate in society", she adds.

There are implications for trans men, too, Fae says:

“You are going to see some very moustachioed, balding, whiskered trans men in women’s loos if you go down that road, and it's possible that trans men could be doubly excluded so they are not allowed in women’s spaces as trans men but not allowed in trans places as women - it is very confusing.”

Sheelagh McClaren
BBC Scotland

Image source, Getty Images

In our earlier post, we touched on what today's ruling could mean for transgender people in sport, and now we've heard from Sharron Davies - a former British swimming champion who has previously said trans athletes should not compete in female competitions in order to "protect women's sport".

She says she's "extremely pleased" by today's judgement. "I think it’s just really important that we can define what a woman is," Davies tells me.

Today's ruling did not concern sports directly, but Davies says she hopes organisations including the Football Association and the English Cricket Board will now take notice and "stop discriminating against women and girls".

"It doesn’t mean to say that we can’t respect people across the whole of society, however they wish to present themselves", she says. "My position was always one that, biologically, women are very different from men", Davies goes on, saying it's time for sports to "protect every female athlete".

For context: In recent years, many sports have tightened up rules around transgender athletes at the elite level. Athletics, cycling and aquatics, for example, have banned transgender women from taking part in women’s events.

Other sports have instead put in place eligibility criteria. Earlier this month the English Football Association introduced stricter rules, but still allowed transgender women to continue to compete in the women’s game as long as their testosterone was kept below a certain level.

In 2022, British Triathlon became the first British sporting body to establish an open category in which transgender athletes can compete.

What are the real life implications of this landmark ruling?published at 13:38 British Summer Time

13:38 BST

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent, at the Supreme Court

The application of the law on the ground, in “real life”, was clearly foremost in the minds of the judges.

Take the example of single sex spaces and services - part of the motivation for For Women Scotland bringing this case.

The previous reading of the law was that everything from hospital wards and prison wings to support groups for victims of abuse can exclude everyone but women thanks to exceptions in the Equality Act 2010.

The concern from campaigners was that if people could change their sex with a certificate, and then claim protection against discrimination as a woman, that could be more complicated.

That’s particularly the case on a practical level, given those providing these services aren’t actually meant to ask to see a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

Now, the court is clear that this exemption can continue; the rules underpinning women-only spaces can exclude people with GRCs.

There are still conditions which need to be satisfied - services will have to show that excluding trans people is a limited and proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim.

Blanket bans are discouraged; there is still a bar to clear.

But For Women Scotland are clearly delighted with the underlying principle, and hope it will lead to clearer guidance for those providing services.

Dr Nick McKerrell, senior law lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, says the court ruling today means that trans women will have different protections from biological women.

He says a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) who is excluded from single-sex spaces can't say she is being discriminated against as a woman.

Single-sex spaces can exclude people with GRCs - a legal document saying someone has changed gender - "if it is proportionate to do so".

However, gender reassignment is still protected in law so it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis that they are trans.

“That hasn’t been settled by this case,” Dr McKerrell says. “It doesn’t mean everything overnight is going to change in terms of stopping trans people from accessing services. It will depend on what providers think the new definition will mean for them.”

The law lecturer says the ruling implies that workplaces need to provide separate spaces for people on the basis of biological sex.

In terms of trans people in sport, he says this is one area which allowed for exemptions from GRCs - but there could be a reassessment as a result of this judgement.

Image source, Getty Images

Harry Potter author JK Rowling, who backed the For Women Scotland group in their legal challenge against the Scottish government, has praised the women behind the campaign in a post on X.

Rowling, who has lived in Scotland for 30 years, posted: "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.

"@ForWomenScot, I’m so proud to know you."

In short, the 88-page ruling, which you can read in full here, external, says:

• A person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in the female gender “does not come within the definition of a ‘woman’ under the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory guidance issued by the Scottish ministers is incorrect”

• Gender reassignment and sex "are separate bases for discrimination and inequality"
• The definition of sex under the Equality Act “makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man”
• Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex “would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way”

• The biological interpretation of terms in the Equality Act, “which we conclude is the only correct one, does not cause disadvantage to trans people, with or without a GRC (gender recognition certificate)”
• Nothing in the ruling "is intended to discourage the appointment of trans people to public boards or to minimise the importance of addressing their under-representation on such boards"

Yasmin Malik
BBC Newsbeat

Transgender activist Jasmine Isa Quereshi tells BBC Newsbeat she’s not disappointed by today’s ruling.

“If you’re disappointed, you had an expectation it was going to be different,” she says.

The 26-year-old, who uses she/they pronouns, doesn’t have a gender recognition certificate so says the court’s decision “won’t change anything for me except make it maybe a bit more difficult to move in this society”.

Quereshi acknowledges basing the definition of a woman on biological sex “might seem like a good way to unite women in spaces and protect those spaces” but she says it is at the expense of “covering up trans women’s voices”.

“By default, we become activists,” she says. “Because we exist outside of the normality.

“I find it very difficult to enjoy existence in this society because I’m always battling with what someone else will think of me.”

The Scottish government has now released a statement, after First Minister John Swinney gave some reaction on social media.

In it, a spokesperson says the government accepts the Supreme Court judgment, adding:

"The Supreme Court rightly counselled against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.

“The ruling gives clarity between two pieces of relevant legislation passed at Westminster. We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions."

The statement continues:

“The Scottish government acted in good faith in our interpretation of both the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010; and our approach was guided by the published guidance of the EHRC.

“The Supreme Court judgment explicitly references that this stance was consistent with the advice given by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

“We will be engaging with the UK government to understand the full implication of this ruling, particularly in relation to Equalities law, which remains largely reserved.

“And we will engage with the EHRC as a matter of urgency on the need to review its guidance considering this judgment.

“Finally, we want to reassure everyone that the Scottish government is fully committed to protecting everyone’s rights, to ensure that Scotland remains an inclusive country.”

Image source, Getty Images

In November, Amnesty International UK intervened, external in the Supreme Court case to call for legal protections for trans people.

The human rights group's chief executive Sacha Deshmukh says it has been a "very febrile public debate" which has seen "misinformation communicated".

He's calling on the government and public policy makers to be clear how anti-discrimination provisions will be "strongly enforced" to protect for the trans community "from any discrimination or prejudice by anyone who tries to use this judgement as a justification for doing so".

Dr Annie Donaldson, who researches domestic abuse and violence against women and is a supporter of For Women Scotland, tells the BBC she is "delighted" by today's ruling.

She says: "I think it gives extreme legal clarity to the issue it was all about, 'what exactly is a women?'.

"The fact that 'woman' is now clearly defined in law is really, really important because there are occasions and situations and settings where it wasn't terribly clear."

Dr Donaldson adds: "I think it gives a lot of clarity, huge clarity to that particular definition."

She stresses she would not support discrimination against anyone, particularly not trans people.

"That's not acceptable under any circumstances in any situation," she says.

There’s been a lot of reaction to today's Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman - but let’s briefly pull away from that to remind ourselves of what the judge said a few hours ago:

• Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge said the court’s "unanimous decision" was that "the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex"
• He warned against reading the judgement as a "triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another"
• After "painstaking analysis", he added, including people with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the sex group would make the Equality Act read in an "incoherent way"
• Lord Hodge also said transgender people still have protection against discrimination through the Equality Act

Image source, PA Media

The charity Stonewall says it's deeply concerned for the "widespread implications" of the Supreme Court ruling.

Chief executive Simon Blake says:

"It will be incredibly worrying for the trans community and all of us who support them.

"It’s important to be reminded the Court strongly and clearly re-affirmed the Equality Act protects all trans people against discrimination, based on gender reassignment, and will continue to do so.

"Once we read and fully digest the judgement, we will work with stakeholders across all sectors to provide as much clarity as possible."

He says the organisation will continue to work with the government to achieve equal rights in the law for LGBTQ+ people.

Image source, PA Media

Today's judgement is the culmination of a seven year-long legal dispute between the Scottish government and For Women Scotland - here's how it all came about:

The initial case

The case - which focused on the proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act - began in 2018.

This was after Scottish Parliament passed a bill designed to ensure gender balance on public sector boards.

For Women Scotland then complained that ministers had included transgender people as part of the quotas in that law.

The campaign group argued this would have wider implications for the single-sex spaces and groups, such as hospital wards and prisons - where transgender women with a gender recognition certificate would be treated as biological women.

Transgender people, meanwhile, warned the case could erode the protections they have against discrimination in their reassigned gender.

The appeals

The issue was then contested several times in the Scottish courts - where the campaign group's arguments failed to change the law.

In the meantime, heated debate around the separate arguments on the subject arose, including an ongoing employment tribunal involving a female NHS Fife nurse who objected to a transgender doctor using a women's changing room.

The Supreme Court - today's verdict

On appeal, the case finally arrived at the Supreme Court in London, where the judges today ruled against the Scottish government and in favour of For Women Scotland.

As we've been reporting, the judgement unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

Trans activist Heather Herbert tells BBC News that today's judgement suggests the UK is "following in the footsteps of Trump's America".

The former Scottish Labour election candidate says that while there are already provisions to protect trans people, the ruling continues a trend of "attacking minorities", citing ethnic minorities and people with disabilities as previous targets.

The activist adds that there needs to be more "clarification" regarding the ruling's implications, saying only having single-sex toilets can prevent trans people being able to work.

However she says that current protections against discrimination should be able to limit the immediate impact on "day to day life".

Image source, EPA

This case first arose when the Scottish government included transgender women in quotas to ensure gender balance on public sector boards.

Campaign group For Women Scotland challenged the definition of a woman in the Act and the issue has been contested several times in the Scottish courts.

Holyrood ministers won a previous case in Scotland, with judge Lady Haldane ruling in 2022 that the definition of sex was "not limited to biological or birth sex".

The Scottish government argued that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) - an official document you can get to say you've changed gender - were entitled to sex-based protections under the Equality Act.

This meant that transgender women with a GRC would have been entitled to the same protections afforded to biological women - and as a result treated the same - under the Act.

They argued that the original legislation was clear that obtaining a GCR amounts to a change of sex "for all purposes".

Siding with the government, many transgender people warned that the For Women Scotland case could erode the protections they have against discrimination in their reassigned gender.

For Women Scotland

The women's rights group, meanwhile, argued that these protections should only apply to people that are born female.

A "common sense" interpretation of the words man and woman was required, the group suggested, adding that sex is an "immutable biological state".

And, the group warned of implications for the running of single-sex spaces and services - including hospital wards and prisons - should the court side with the government.

Image source, PA Media

We're now hearing response from the Scottish government.

First Minister John Swinney, in a post on social media, external, says the government "accepts today's Supreme Court judgement".

In a short statement, he adds: "The ruling gives clarity between two relevant pieces of legislation passed at Westminster.

"We will now engage on the implications of the ruling. Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions."

Image source, Getty Images

Scottish Labour says it has always called for the protection of single-sex spaces on the basis of biological sex.

Equalities spokesman Paul O’Kane says: “This court ruling should of course be respected, and as Lord Hodge said, this must not be read as a triumph of one or more groups at the expense of another.

“Now that we have this clarity, the SNP government must now provide clear guidance for Scottish public services so they can implement the Equality Act properly and uphold the rights and dignity of all.”