What are the real life implications of this landmark ruling?published at 13:38 British Summer Time 16 April

13:38 BST 16 April

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 Qureshi 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”.

Qureshi acknowledges basing the definition of a woman on biological sex “might seem [to some] 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” which ultimately hurts “the rights of all women”.

“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.”

Reaction to today's landmark ruling is continuing to pour in.

The health board involved in an ongoing employment tribunal regarding a transgender doctor has commented on the decision.

Sandie Peggie, a nurse with NHS Fife, was suspended by the health board after refusing to share a changing room with Dr Beth Upton, a trans woman.

A spokesperson for the health board says: "NHS Fife notes the clarity provided by today’s Supreme Court ruling regarding the legal definition of a woman. We will now take time to carefully consider the judgement and its implications."

Earlier this year, an employment tribunal heard days of evidence from both sides, regarding both Peggie's employment and wider issues related to transgender rights.

The tribunal is due to resume in the summer.

The LGB Alliance charity, which provided a combined written submission in the case along with several other groups, says they are “delighted” with the ruling.

"The ruling confirms that the words ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ refer to same-sex sexual orientation and makes it absolutely clear that lesbians wishing to form associations of any size are lawfully entitled to exclude men – whether or not they possess a GRC (gender recognition certificate)," chief executive Kate Barker says.

"It is difficult to express the significance of this ruling: it marks a watershed for women and, in particular, lesbians who have seen their rights and identities steadily stolen from them over the last decade."

She adds: “This is a victory for biology, for common sense, for reality."

Image source, Getty Images

Joanna Cherry, the former SNP MP and women's rights campaigner, says she felt "hugely vindicated" by the ruling.

Ms Cherry, who lost her seat in last year's general election, urged Scottish First Minister John Swinney and UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to “respect this judgement” and protect women’s rights, as well as single-sex spaces.

She says public policy decisions would need to reflect “the fact that women means biological women and lesbian means women who are sexually attracted to women”.

The former MP added: "I'm a long-term feminist. I'm a lesbian who came out in the '80s and campaigned against Section 28.

"I've had to put up with my own party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, calling me a bigot and a transphobe for sticking up for the rights of women and lesbians.

"I think she owes all of us, not just me, and more importantly the women of Scotland, an apology."

Nicola Sturgeon, who was first minister when the challenges were first brought, has not yet commented on the ruling.

Image source, Reuters

"We'll get through this together", British model and transgender activist Munroe Bergdorf wrote on social media following this morning's ruling.

In an Instagram story post, she says: "Spending the next few days listening/speaking to legal experts about how this will impact the future of our community in the UK."

"In the meantime, please hold each other close", she adds.