Law, Gender, and Justice: Reflections on the UK Supreme Court’s 2025 “For Women Scotland” Judgment

This April, the UK Supreme Court handed down a judgment that will shape the legal and social landscape for years to come: For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. The case sits at the crossroads of law, gender, and public policy, raising profound questions about how we define “woman” and “man” in law, and how those definitions affect both women’s rights and the rights of transgender people.

As progressive Christians, we are called to seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8). This means engaging thoughtfully with the legal frameworks that govern our society, especially when they touch on the dignity and inclusion of marginalised groups. This case is a powerful example of how law, language, and lived experience intersect—and sometimes collide.

At the heart of the case was the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010), the UK’s primary anti-discrimination law, and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA 2004), which allows transgender people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) and be legally recognised in their acquired gender.

The Scottish Parliament, seeking to promote gender balance on public boards, passed the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The Act’s definition of “woman” included some trans women, but not all. After a series of legal challenges, the Scottish Government issued guidance stating that a trans woman with a GRC should be counted as a woman for the purposes of the Act.

For Women Scotland, a feminist organisation, challenged this guidance, arguing that it was based on a misunderstanding of the law and that “woman” in the Equality Act should mean “biological woman” only.

The Supreme Court, in a lengthy and detailed judgment, sided with For Women Scotland. The Court held that:

“Sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, not “certificated sex” (i.e., the sex recorded on a GRC).

The legal protections and group-based rights for women under the Equality Act are intended for biological females.

The Act’s structure and language, especially in areas like pregnancy, maternity, and single-sex spaces, become incoherent or unworkable if “sex” is interpreted to include trans women with a GRC.

Trans people remain protected under the separate characteristic of “gender reassignment,” but their legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act does not change with a GRC.

The Court emphasised that its role was not to define “woman” in a general or philosophical sense, nor to adjudicate the broader social debate about gender identity, but to interpret the words Parliament used in the context of the law.

For those of us who care about both justice and inclusion, this decision is challenging. The Court’s reasoning is rooted in the need for legal clarity and predictability—values that are important for the rule of law. Yet, as people of faith, we also recognise the sacred worth of every person, including those whose gender identity does not fit neatly into binary categories.

The law, by necessity, draws lines. But as Christians, we are called to see beyond those lines—to recognise the image of God in every person, to listen to the stories of those on the margins, and to advocate for systems that protect the vulnerable.

This judgment will have real-world effects. It clarifies that, in law, “woman” means biological female for the purposes of sex-based rights and protections. This will affect how public bodies, charities, and associations operate, especially those providing single-sex services or spaces.

At the same time, the Court was careful to affirm that trans people are still protected from discrimination—just under a different legal category. The judgment also acknowledged the need for public boards and organisations to consider the representation and inclusion of trans people, even if they are not counted towards statutory gender quotas.

For churches and faith-based organisations, this is a moment to reflect on our own practices. How do we create spaces that are both safe for women and welcoming to trans people? How do we balance the need for clarity with the call to radical hospitality?

The Supreme Court’s decision is not the end of the conversation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, in its submissions, recognised the “profound difficulties” caused by the current legal framework and called for Parliament to address the gaps and ambiguities.

As progressive Christians, we can advocate for laws that are both clear and compassionate. We can support efforts to ensure that women’s rights are protected, while also working to remove barriers and stigma faced by trans people. We can listen, learn, and stand in solidarity with all who are vulnerable to discrimination.

The For Women Scotland case reminds us that law is not just about rules—it is about people, relationships, and the kind of society we want to build. As followers of Christ, we are called to be peacemakers and bridge-builders, seeking justice for all, even when the path is complex.

Let us pray for wisdom for our lawmakers, compassion for those affected by these decisions, and courage for our communities to embody the inclusive love of God.

Further information from equalityaustralia.org.au:

The UK judgment emphasised that trans people would still have recourse under discrimination protections on the grounds of gender reassignment, but in practical terms, trans people may lose some protections from sexism under the UK Act. The decision risks creating categories of women with varying levels of rights and recourse in instances of discrimination.  

This judgment differs from legal definitions of sex and gender in Australia, which have recently reinforced that sex is changeable, for example in last year’s Federal Court judgment in Tickle vs Giggle. This case followed previous Federal and High Court cases that reinforce that relevant laws in Australia are working coherently and have explicitly avoided situations such as what’s playing out in the UK.  

Our Australian laws are different from the UK, and they are very clear. Unlike the approach in the UK Act, Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), does not explicitly define ‘man’ or ‘woman’, following amendments made in 2013. The Explanatory Memorandum to the 2013 amendments also expressly affirms that ‘man’ and ‘woman’ shouldn’t be interpreted so narrowly to exclude trans people from protections.