Transgender Updates: May 2025

Supreme Court Ruling

What is it?

The supreme court ruled on 16April that the legal definition of a woman, for the purpose of the Equality Act2010, is based on biological sex. The ruling was the final stage in a much longer legal dispute which began back in 2018 when a law was passed by the Scottish Parliament which aimed to ensure gender equality on public boards. The group ‘For Women Scotland’ brought a series of legal challenges against the Scottish government, arguing that this law should be struck down as it included transgender women within the definition of a ‘woman’. This case found its way to the Supreme Court where the judges were required to interpret the definition of a ‘woman’ as used in the provisions of the Equality Act. Although the Court’s decision was a complex one, ultimately the judges decided that the definition of a ‘woman’, for the purposes of the Equality Act, is based on biological sex.

What impact will it have?

Many hail this ruling as clarifying the law, but this doesn’t necessarily mean this area has been simplified. Legal and public policy experts will need to decipher how this ruling will work on a practical level, which is far from clearcut. It is also unclear how much change will actually be brought about by this ruling. It must be remembered that gender reassignment is protected in law elsewhere, so it is illegal to discriminate against someone because they are transgender. It is also already permitted (provided certain circumstances are met) to exclude transgender women from receiving services for women only.

How has it been received?

Unsurprisingly, the ruling has had a mixed reception. Some welcome the decision as providing clarity and protection for women’s rights. Others see the outcome as a further erosion of transgender protections. The Prime Minister welcomed the ruling, saying it would provide ‘much needed clarity’. However, other MPs have raised concerns over how the ruling could lead to a vulnerable group in society having to use facilities where they feel unsafe.

What’s next?

Public policy experts will be working to interpret the judgment and determine how it is to be applied. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (ECHR) has already released an interim update on the practical implications of the ruling. This initial guidance sets out that the ideal is for workplaces and services that are open to the public to have both single-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities, in addition to mixed-sex facilities, so everyone has access to facilities with which they are comfortable. The ECHR will undertake a public consultation at the end of May to ascertain how best to update their Code of Practice for the UK Government to incorporate the ruling and aims to provide an updated Code by the end of June for ministerial approval. This Code will help provide guidance to service providers, public bodies and associations.

Further, Victoria McCloud, a former High Court judge, has confirmed she will challenge the Supreme Court ruling in Europe’s human rights court, saying that the decision was ‘not in accordance with British values of tolerance’ and would ‘impact all minorities’.

Trans Doctor Row

A recent court case that will likely be impacted by the Supreme Court’s ruling focuses on the suspension of a nurse who objected to sharing a changing room with a transgender doctor. Nurse Sandie Peggie claimed that having to share changing facilities with a transgender woman amounted to unlawful harassment. Ms Peggie took NHS Fife and Dr Beth Upton to tribunal after being suspended following an incident in the female changing room in the hospital where both were employed.

The hearing was expected to have concluded by the end of February, but was adjourned until 16 July due to the questioning of witnesses being expected to take longer than anticipated. However, the recent developments with the Supreme Court will likely impact upon the hearing and it will be interesting to see how the case develops.

University of Sussex Freedom of Speech Fine

Following an investigation by the higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), the University of Sussex has been fined £585,000 for failing to uphold freedom of speech. The issue centred on the university's policy statement on trans and non-binary equality, which included a requirement to 'positively represent trans people'. The OfS concluded that this obligation could limit staff and students’ ability to express their views freely, commenting that it was 'concerned that a chilling effect may have caused many more students and academics at the university to self-censor'.

The investigation followed the resignation of Prof Kathleen Stock, who left the university in 2021 after she was accused of transphobia. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson commented that 'we are giving the OfS stronger powers on freedom of speech so students and academics are not muzzled by the chilling effect demonstrated in this case'.

The University of Sussex voiced concerns over how institutions such as theirs can balance the need to prevent hate speech with the right to freedom of speech, accusing the regulator of pursuing a 'vindictive and unreasonable campaign'.

Transgender Athletes

The debate over transgender sportspeople continues and is likely to be impacted further by the Supreme Court ruling. After the US President signed an executive order preventing transgender women competing in female categories of sports, Seb Coe suggested he would consider a similar blanket ban should he be elected to the role of International Olympic Committee president. Although he was unsuccessful, the matter is clearly a key topic. Andrew Parsons, President of the International Paralympic Committee, took a different view, stating that he didn’t feel that a blanket ban was the answer, as sports is a complex area.

World Athletics has reported a desire to toughen its current policy that anyone who has undergone male puberty is barred from female categories of sports. Their current policy is based on research that stated trans women retained an advantage in strength, endurance, power and lung capacity, even after taking medication to suppress their testosterone. However, they now report that new evidence has 'clarifie(d) there is already an athletically significant performance gap before the onset of puberty'.

The aim is to ensure guidelines keep up to date with the latest information available and maintain fairness. As part of this, World Athletics wants to adopt a cheek swab test for biological sex. These recommendations are currently out for consultation but are expected to be implemented later this year.