Posted: 10 June 2025 Authors: Oli Belas, Alex Baird, Shelby Davies

The purpose of this blog – which we hope will be the first in a series of collaborative efforts – is to recap the and, crucially, the which followed the ruling; and then to summarise the challenges – legal and moral – that have been made against both by LGBTQIA+ groups and the Good Law Project.

But first, we want to state clearly our unwavering support for our LGBTQIA+ friends, colleagues (students and staff), our loved ones.

We begin by asserting our position and our solidarity because, additional to our dismay at the ruling and our rejection of the interim guidance, we’re saddened at how slow many universities have been to, and at the difficulty many seem to have expressing support in clear, positive terms for their LGTBQIA+ students and staff – even as, across the board, they reaffirm universities’ commitments to inclusivity. We’re speaking generally here; we are aware of some exceptions. Perhaps this indicates the chilling effects on the sector of the and to fine for breech thereof. Ours seems to be a moment in which those in power pull the free-speech lever in favour of right-wing, retrogressive causes.

Against such a backdrop, we understand that, perhaps more than the SC ruling, the EHRC’s interim guidance – which is non-statutory, goes beyond the intended scope of the SC ruling, and, is either “wrong in law” or “breaches human rights” – has that are not overtly, intentionally, or ideologically transphobic. But the ruling and guidance have also emboldened those organisations and individuals who are, despite the SC judges stating (unconvincingly) that their ruling doesn’t entail trans persons’ loss of rights or protections.

Gender reassignment remains protected by the Equality Act (2010); gender-based harassment and discrimination are prohibited by law. And yet, in the short time since the SC ruling, the UK has fallen in from 1 to 22 of 49 European countries ranked for LGBTQIA-inclusive political and legal practices, making it the worst western-European country for LGBTQIA rights; it is 45 of 49 for specifically trans rights; and it is one of only five countries (including Russian and Hungary) to “have legal frameworks that make [legal gender recognition] completely impossible.” The UK, , follows a broader international trend: transphobia is more vocal and more brazen than before.* The ruling also comes at a time when , abused, and challenged on their right to occupy women-only spaces. . The only cohort not disadvantaged by the current situation are cis-presenting (or cis-read) men.

It would, then, be well within the scope of the Equality Act (2010) and the equality duty on universities for leaders to express in clear, positive terms active support for LGBTQIA+ students and staff. Acknowledgement in general terms of a difficult time for many is not a show of support.

The SC’s judgement was that, in the context of the Equality Act (2010), the word “woman” referred to adults who had been assigned female at birth. The appellant, the organisation For Women Scotland, had appealed only the meanings of “female” and “woman” in context of the Act, though the judgement extended to “male” and “man.”

The judges’ reasoning for their conclusion was that, in the context of legislative documents, it should be assumed that repeated terms have consistent meaning, otherwise variable, even contradictory, interpretations and applications of the law can arise. They concluded that the only coherent reading of the Equality Act (2010)’s use of the words “sex,” “woman,” “man” was a biological one – that is, in the context of the Equality Act (2010), those words refer to birth-assigned sex only.

The judges were clear on the narrow application of their judgement: it applied only to the use of certain terms in the context of the Equality Act (2010); it was a pronouncement on neither disciplinary nor public discourse; it was not a definition, but a specification; and, as mentioned, they attempted to show that their ruling doesn’t strip trans persons of rights and protections. that their ruling “should not be read as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another” (though one wonders how it could possibly be seen as an LGBTQIA+ “victory”).

Such qualification and caveating signal the judges’ full awareness of how their ruling was likely to be – and, indeed, has been – weaponised. But this is because the ruling – far from offering – is contradictory and unusable. Immediately, the gender-sceptical and trans-exclusionary media talk was of the biological definition of “woman” being enshrined in law.** Good headlines, if you like that sort of thing, but wrong: again, the judgement was on the meaning, according to use, of certain words in one document.

The judges’ attempts to qualify and downplay their judgement aside, significant concerns have been raised. , in a detailed critique of the judgement for the Good Law Project, focuses on three points: that the judgement may well contravene the Human Rights Act and the UK’s duty under the European Convention on Human Rights; that, contrary to the SC judges’ claims, the standard legal interpretation of sex has been trans-inclusive since the Sex Discrimination Act (1975); and that the ruling conflicts with the EHRC’s own Statutory Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations. (It should be noted that the Code of Practice was published in 2011, long before Baroness Falkner, the current, trans-exclusionary, chair was appointed.)

In response to the SC ruling, Victoria McCloud, the UK’s first and currently only out trans judge, is bringing an action against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights for infringing upon her human rights. One pillar of her complaint is the exclusion of trans voices from the SC’s considerations (no submissions were granted from trans persons or organisations during the judges’ considerations). While some voices have claimed that no such submissions were needed, the disagrees, considering .***

At the time of writing, following the SC ruling. Trans-rights organisations, such as and , are encouraging all LGBTQIA+ persons, groups, and allies to respond. They are providing guidance on how to do so in support of LGBTQIA+ persons and communities (links to which are below as well as embedded above). We urge our readers to consider these organizations’ guidance and to respond accordingly, and to request the support of their local MP. The consultation closes at 23:59, 30 June 2025.

Links

Notes

*, recorded March-March, report a 2% reduction in anti-trans hate crime between 2022-23 (4,889) and 2023-24 (4,780), though this is in the context of a rising trajectory since 2020-21 (2,799).

**Examples here from , , and . Typically, these stories (deliberately?) bury the lede, only specifying the narrow context of the ruling after opening with grand overgeneralizations.

***One well-known trans-exclusionary voice was quoted, first in the Daily Express which was then echoed by the , as calling Dr. McCloud a “moron” for planning to bring her legal action. The original Express story is no longer available directly, though it’s archived at . The Express framed the Stock's quote as if it were directed at Dr. McCloud:

Kathleen Stock, a gender critical campaigner, blasted Dr. McCloud, saying: "If you think the Supreme Court should have 'consulted trans people' about their 'lived experience' while interpreting existing law YOU ARE A MORON, this is not what courts do and for good reason – how would it be workably scaled up?”

However, it’s not clear whether Stock’s comment was originally aimed at Dr. McCloud and her legal action, as the Express implies, or was aimed more generally at trans-rights-activist voices concerned at the exclusion of trans experiences from the SC’s considerations. (which embed a BBC soundbite echoing the Express piece) suggest the latter: “I wasn't even thinking of McCloud particularly […] but if the judge’s wig fits... .” Implicitly, then, and we would say perversely, Stock is endorsing a criticism attributed to her but which she didn’t, in the first instance, actually make; and in so doing, she is also endorsing the kind of ad hominem attack she has elsewhere decried.

It should also be said that, while Stock may have meant that individual interventions cannot be scaled up, the SC does allow and did so in this case, hearing from Amnesty International, the EHRC, Sex Matters, and a coalition of lesbian organizations. The coalition was comprised of LGB Alliance, the Lesbian Project, and Scottish Lesbians, all groups that take a trans-exclusionary position. Of the four interveners, then, two were trans-exclusionary (and of those two, one was made up of three trans-exclusionary groups); none was a trans-rights advocacy group, though Amnesty is trans-inclusive. Two of the four interveners sided with For Women Scotland, two with the Scottish government (Amnesty and - remarkably - the EHRC).