It took less than a day after the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers for some to start celebrating it as a monumental “win” for so-called sex-based rights. Social media lit up with triumphalist declarations: "Biological sex is back!", "The courts have banned trans women!", and, of course, the usual anti-trans talking points dressed up as feminism.
But before we get carried away, it’s time for some legal clarity.
Because this decision? It’s far more restrained - and far less revolutionary - than many of its loudest supporters want to believe. The judgment doesn’t override the rights of trans people under the Equality Act 2010. It doesn’t make it lawful to exclude trans people from public life. And it certainly doesn’t roll back decades of human rights law or anti-discrimination protections.
Let’s unpack what it actually says - and why it still leaves the door wide open to equality.
A Question of Statutory Interpretation—Not Identity
The Supreme Court’s judgment was, at its core, about how to interpret the word “woman” in one very specific legislative context: the Scottish Government’s gender representation targets for public boards, and whether the inclusion of some trans women fell outside devolved competence.
The Court found that in the context of the Equality Act 2010, the words “man”, “woman” and “sex” refer to biological sex, not the certificated sex recognised under a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). Why? Because using “certificated sex” would create practical, legal, and interpretive problems throughout the legislation - especially around things like maternity rights, communal accommodation, and sport.
So yes, the Court said that for the purposes of the Equality Act’s sex discrimination provisions, “woman” means a biological female.
But here’s the crucial bit: this does not mean trans people lose protection. Quite the opposite.
Trans People Are Still Protected—Fully and Explicitly
Trans people remain protected under another protected characteristic: gender reassignment, which was upheld and affirmed throughout the judgment. The Court stated unambiguously that trans people - regardless of whether they have a GRC - are protected under sections 7 and 13 of the Equality Act 2010. That includes protection from:
- Direct discrimination
- Harassment
- Victimisation
- Indirect discrimination
A trans woman who is denied service, targeted in a workplace, or harassed in public because of her trans status or perceived identity still has a legal remedy. Nothing in the judgment undermines that. In fact, the Court went out of its way to clarify this point, perhaps anticipating how its ruling would be misrepresented.
In other words: no, you can’t now lawfully misgender people, ban them from public toilets, or discriminate against them just because the word “woman” in one section of the Equality Act refers to biological sex.
Policy Can - and Will - Change
It’s also important to stress this: the judgment does not prevent Parliament from amending the Equality Act in the future.
Legislation is dynamic. The fact that the current interpretation of “sex” reflects biological sex doesn’t mean it must remain that way. Parliament can legislate to include gender identity or certificated sex under the definition of “woman” if the political will exists.
Indeed, the judgment may galvanise support for precisely that kind of legislative reform. And given that statutory interpretation is about reading what Parliament wrote - not what the courts think it ought to have meant - it leaves open the future of inclusion.
No Right to Exclude
What’s particularly troubling about the rhetoric around this ruling is the implication - incorrect and legally unfounded - that it gives individuals, organisations, or employers free rein to exclude trans people from women’s spaces.
It does not.
The Equality Act 2010 still allows proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim when it comes to single-sex services (Schedule 3, paragraphs 26–28), but that test is not a carte blanche. It requires evidence, necessity, and scrutiny. You can’t just say “no trans people allowed” and call it compliance.
Also important: gender reassignment is still a protected characteristic. Unlawful treatment based on it can result in civil action, compensation, and reputational damage. And the Human Rights Act 1998 still applies.
So, any attempt to “test the limits” of this judgment by deliberately misapplying it to exclude, intimidate, or harm trans individuals? That’s not legal bravery. That’s a discrimination claim waiting to happen.
Final Thoughts: What This Future Lawyer Took Away
I will read the entire judgment. but I followed the arguments. I listened to the misinterpretations. And I came away with this: it’s a narrow, technical decision about the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the coherent interpretation of two pieces of overlapping UK legislation - the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
It wasn’t a culture war ruling. It wasn’t a moral endorsement of “biological essentialism.” And it certainly wasn’t an invitation to roll back rights.
This decision upholds the rule of law, yes. But it also reaffirms that trans people exist, matter, and are legally protected. And in a world increasingly fuelled by fear and misinformation, that message needs repeating - loudly and often.
If you’re trans, you are still protected.
If you’re a legal professional, you still have a duty to act without bias.
And if you're celebrating this ruling as a free pass to exclude or harm people you don’t like, you haven’t read the judgment - you’ve read your own prejudice into it.