It’s been a tough day for trans and non binary people and for those who love them. The Judgement handed down by the Supreme Court on the definition of a woman throughout the Equality Act 2010 has understandably caused significant anxiety about what this could mean for the rights of trans people.
For me there seems to be an inherent contradiction between
The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
and
the legislation gives transgender people “protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender”.
I’m not seeing anything in the judgement that says that trans people must be excluded from single sex spaces, only that it is not unlawful discrimination if they are.
Regardless, though, it is clear that today’s judgement will at least in the short term make trans people’s lives more difficult and less safe while not making one single woman, cis or trans, safer.
I suspect we will now see further attempts by an emboldened anti-trans movement to roll back the rights of trans people as far as they can. And that is why so many people I care about are so worried.
If the Government is going to issue guidance on this, let’s hope that they consult widely and don’t come out with a load of anti-trans talking points. I’m not going to hold my breath on this one.
Anyway the purpose of this post is to report the reactions of official Lib Dem organisations and spokespeople.
LGBT+ Lib Dems said this:
We are studying today’s judgement by the UK Supreme Court.
Nothing they rule will change our solidarity with the trans+ community and with everyone who seeks to live their lives under control of their own bodies, and free from poverty, ignorance or conformity.
Trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary and intersex folks are valid just as they are. It’s time this was reflected in the law of the land, and LGBT+ Lib Dems will be at the forefront of pushing for that change.
Lots of love to our trans+ siblings and their loved ones today.
This was reposted by Lib Dem Women with the words “Exactly this.”
Women and Equalities spokesperson Christine Jardine said on Bluesky:
The Supreme Court judgement has caused concern and left people unsure what it means to them. The government must now provide further clarity and clear guidance that ensures everyone’s rights and dignity, including protecting women and trans people’s rights, as the ruling makes clear.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How the war impacted on Ravensworth
The Englishman in the High Castle
Slow consulting
ALS, MND - is this another disease where biohacking has potential?
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
David Le Grice
Geoffrey Payne
Simon McGrath
33 Comments
Yes – exactly this.
You have to wonder exactly how they would define “biological sex”. Seems like a new socially constructed concept.
My understanding is that no evidence was taken from a single trans person. How on earth can this judgement be valid or reasonable without doing that?
I anticipate the government – which has already proven itself to be a big government in respect of control and a laissez-faire government in respect of help – will double down on this out of fear of Reform and the retrograde Blue Labour. The party needs to make a lot of noise about this and put almighty pressure on ministers.
Authority be damned till it defends people who need defending equally.
@Jenny Barnes, to answer your question, I think the definition of “biological sex” would rest on the chromosomes. At conception, XX = female and XY = male, and the effect of genes during embryonic development means that babies are born with their ‘biological’ sex already decided (in a few very rare cases abnormal chromosomes mean this is not quite so simple). No fair-minded person would deny people the right to decide their sexual orientation, or their gender identification, in their adult life, and nor should those who think that a definition based on inherited genes is a scientific fact be accused of being transphobic.
I think it is important to be clear that this is an interpretation of what the law means as presently written.
We now have to campaign to change the law so it means what we thought it meant before this ruling. I think it must be changed to make clear that in all interpretations of the law that a trans woman is to be regarded as a woman (and indeed the same for trans men)
I do not expect such clarity from the current Labour Government. This will be a hard fight, but one we must win.
@J – The Supreme Court didn’t receive evidence from trans people or anyone else because they are an appellate court seeking to decide what the legislation means, rather than making a decision based on evidence.
And, from a fairly brief reading of the judgment, their principal reasons for overruling the Scottish courts were that: otherwise the word “woman” would have to have differing meanings in different places in the same Act of Parliament; making things depend on possession of a gender recognition certificate conflicts with the fact that a GRC is private and confidential.
Reconciling the rights of trans people on the one hand and the rights of rape survivors and the integrity of elite women’s competitive sport on the other is not straightforward, and we live in an age when nuance – “on the one hand this, on the other hand that” – seems to frighten us. And neither “trans women are women, full stop” nor “men are men and women are women, full stop” addresses that nuance.
Ed Davey told the media “we accept entirely” the court’s judgement.
@MarkJohnson. Of course he did. The SC is the highest court in the land and their interpretation of what the law means is clear and cannot be he challenged in any other court. However, the law can be changed by parliament to make clear that trans women and trans men are to be regarded as their chosen gender in UK law. The battle to achieve that starts now
“You have to wonder exactly how they would define “biological sex”. ”
The Court said (at para 7 of the judgement) that its uses “the expression “biological sex” which is used widely……. to describe the sex of a person at birth”. Presumably therefore “biological sex” in this context rests on what is on a person’s birth certificate which rests in turn on what a person looked like at birth.
@Mick Taylor, you are assuming a ‘battle’ is really needed, but if you’re right there is a lot to untangle (more than would fit inside the LDV word limit). Toilets and changing rooms are a separate issue, but for female athletes it’s pretty clear that competing against people who’ve benefitted from higher testosterone levels than most other women is unfair – and unfair in that context can mean years of dedication to training for their sport are rendered null and void.
“Presumably therefore “biological sex” in this context rests on what is on a person’s birth certificate ”
However, one of the functions of a Gender Recognition Certificate is to allow one’s birth certificate to be changed to the acquired gender – so presumably it cannot be based on birth certificate
“the definition of “biological sex” would rest on the chromosomes.” How many people actually know whether they are XX , XY or something else? Not many, I suggest, so it’s not a useful definition.
That’s not the party’s official statement.
Unfortunately this is: https://www.libdems.org.uk/press/release/supreme-court-ruling
It’s disgustingly vague and doesn’t really say anything particularly supportive of trans people. Anyone reading this will have very little idea of where we stand on trans rights.
The Green party’s statement on the other hand is much stronger. No wonder they tend to be the default option for the most liberal minded voters these days, whilst we’re still struggling to get people to know what we even stand for as a party.
I feel that the response from the Party’s leadership has been inadequate. Ed Davey just said something about respecting the decision of the Supreme Court, and something about the need for greater clarity. So far he does not seem to have said anything which shows any empathy with the fear and distress being experienced by trans people after this ruling, or expressed any committment to campaign for legislation to strengthen the rights of trans people. In contrast, statements by the leadership of the Green Party have shown much more empathy. I realise the Liberal Democrats do have strongly pro trans policies. But the leadership are showing a lack of committment to these policies. Sadly, I feel that the party is letting trans people down just when they need us most
I cannot get over how utterly appallingly conventional politics is failing people who don’t fit into so-called norms. I am consumed by rage and tears for the people I know and love who this judgement will hurt, and with fear and disdain for the monsters who want to kick them back in the closet in the name of their own glorious political profile. I don’t care right now about reason or moderation or good manners – it’s wrong, it will be wrong tomorrow and wrong in a year and wrong until trans people (among many others the world likes to deny and demean, including cis women) are allowed to be who they are. To hell with prevailing authority, to hell with established patriarchal hierarchies, and right now to hell with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission who have in the last 24 hours removed their entitlement to three of those words.
Perhaps a period of reflection would be advisable ? From what I can gather, organisations offering services to women may chose to offer those services only to those born as women (“biological women”) without falling foul of equality law. It is not clear whether the decision of those organisations has to be justified, eg rape crisis centres might feel the presence of “biological men” (and yes, I know the term is problematic for many) to be unacceptable, but to simply exclude trans people from the local women’s book club, just because you can, would not be allowed.
The tide has been running in this direction for a little time, so perhaps, hopefully, there will be fewer immediate implications that many fear. For example, several sports bodies have banned trans athletes from their competitions. What I am sure we can all agree upon is that every human being is entitled to the respect of their fellow man on their journey through this troubled world. Lets see if we can work through this new (?) ruling. Who actually gains from another brutal round of the culture wars ?
The SC judgement would seem to be only on a fairly narrow point of law. It has always been possible under the GRA for single sex services and spaces to declare that they are only open to cis-women or cis-men IF that limitation is proportionate and meets a clear need. However, a Gender Recognition certificate declares that the holder is their acquired gender for all purposes, and therefore trans people who are holders of GRCs in this scenario could not be excluded as above. The SC judgement says this is no longer the case, and holders of GRCs, like other trans people, can be so excluded. It doesn’t, as Baroness Falkner seems to think, mean that all trans people can now be excluded from all gender appropriate spaces willy nilly.
The exclusion of the gender critical group Liberal Voice for Women from the party conference was a disgrace for a supposedly Liberal party. Equally , the mealy mouthed response from the leadership to a judgment which is a direct attack on trans men and women is a disgrace. Listening to the head of the Equalities Commission this morning I rather felt she was in the wrong job.
I’ve spent most of the past 2 days in bits over this. I’m just so, so afraid right now.
@micktaylor When all the larger parties also welcome the court judgement, changing the law would not be realistic. We’d first have to form a majority government, which is unlikely in the present circumstances.
I came looking here as I’d not seen the party’s response reported anywhere. I’m not sure it was worth the Mbps I used up to get it as it is so vague and could mean anything to anyone. As there are clever people who put such things together that is no doubt the intention and thus the Lib Dems retreat into a moderate, say anything to anyone, don’t upset the horses of middle England, party for Centrist Dads continues.
I’m not sure what ‘accepts the decision of the Supreme Court’s ruling means. What that does is say what the law is. It certainly does not say the law can never change nor is it the final decision on what the positon of a liberal party should be, See here where a LIb Dem MP disagreed with a decision of the Supreme Court and brought forward new legislation: https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-have-you-ever-felt-ripped-off-by-your-bank-20329.html
Ed Davey has said ” …the judgment brings clarity to a long-confused area of law but urged the government and Equality and Human Rights Commission to issue clear guidance to help businesses and individuals understand the implications.”
Perhaps of more immediate concern is the pressure from the USA to link UK hate speech laws that protect LGBT+ people to trade negotiations Starmer told UK must repeal hate speech laws to protect LGBT+ people or lose Trump trade deal. The US wants to see laws on hate speech repealed as well as plans for a new online safety law dropped. Labour has made it clear it is not prepared to go that far. A Downing Street source said the subject “is not a feature of the talks”. I should think not. It is an outrageous proposal from the US negotiators.
A very important legal and political consideration is how badly this UK Court decision conflicts with Goodwin v UK 2002, the European Court of Human Rights (see https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=002-5265&filename=002-5265.pdf&TID=ihgdqbxnfi)
Para 90 “In short, the unsatisfactory situation in which post-operative
transsexuals live in an intermediate zone as not quite one gender or the other
is no longer sustainable.”
As a result of this ruling, trans people are back in the same legal limbo of being female for some legal purposes but male for others.
Indeed the limbo extends to sexual orientation too: a married person with a GRC is simultaneously in a same sex marriage for some purposes and an opposite sex relationship for others. So is their spouse: simultaneously regarded as both straight and gay / lesbian.
Regarding what can be done, one very quick thing would be a short amendment to the Equality Act stating “Nothing in this Act invokes Section 9(3) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004”
That would restore the legal situation to what almost every legal authority in the area thought it was before Thursday (including two Scottish Courts and the EHRC) and realign UK law with Goodwin.
Failing to do that will trigger a future clash with the European Court of Human Rights. A clash that only the far right in UK politics wants and would make capital from.
It would seem that a fully trans person with a GRC & a changed Birth certificate, unless there are Police & a medical officer present & an instant test kit for DNA chromosones that they can just carry on using the loo & if they have had full surgery a strip search only proves their aquired sex, what about Butch/efeminate people will they be challenged, will all of us gender queer folks who present other than our birth sex occasionally & dare not permantly transition knowing jobs would be lost, being cut off by your family & freinds I have also suffered violence from transphobes breaking my colar bone khoking out 3 teeth & bruised ribs leading to pneumonia transphobia is all too real & happening daily.
It is frightening Trump & Reform are closely following Goebbles playbook & I don’t think I am scaremongering, already people are disappearing in the US, plain clothes ICE & Police arresting famillies & intering them with no warrent & no one knows where they are. 1933 all over again.
@Andy Daer intersex is not what I consider “very rare”, the United Nations of Human Rights has this community at 1.7% of the population. That’s a significant amount of people. https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/intersex-people
I’m ginger and that’s probably higher than us! Many people don’t know they’re intersex, it’s very complex and misunderstood.
Good to see some common sense from Ed Davey on this issue. It’s an issue where a moderate position is called for, rather than the extremes on both sides.
@J – The Scottish Government and Amnesty UK made the arguments on behalf of trans people. No trans organisations applied to intervene.
@Liz Haunch – intersex (or DSDs – sex-specific medical conditions that have absolutely nothing to do with trans) are indeed very rare. The true figure is closer to 0.018%. https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red
The court clarified that the protected characteristic of Sex in the Equality Act refers to biological sex: male and female. This is simple common sense and is what the protected characteristic was always intended to mean when Parliament enacted the legislation. Trans people remain protected under the characteristic of Gender Reassignment. Nobody has lost any rights and it’s deeply irresponsible to scare trans people into thinking that they have.
Among other things, the judgment confirmed that the words gay and lesbian relate to sexual orientation and not whatever may be written on a certificate, and that lesbians do have the right to exclude straight men claiming to be lesbians from their spaces. You’d think this would be something our party – with our long history of supporting gay rights – would welcome.
Two individuals, an academic and a former High Court judge, both holders of a GRC, applied to intervene but were refused without any reasons being given.
As someone who studied reproductive immunology as a postgrad, I find the Supreme Court’s ruling baffling and premature. As far as I can discern, the ruling restricts the definition of ‘biological sex’ as ‘what the doctor saw when they looked at your genitals when you were born’. True biological sex is simply not that simple – for instance, one in every 20,000 ostensibly cis men actually has XX sex chromosomes and a similar number of phenotypically female people have XY chromosomes but their cells do not respond to androgens. In both cases, those people only discover this when they seek treatment for fertility problems – many will live their entire lives unaware that their sex chromosomes do not align with their sexual anatomy. So what does the new ruling mean for them? Let alone the roughly 1m intersex people living in the UK, who now appear to have been erased altogether.
I don’t know the ins-and-outs of the judicial system at that level, but I feel that without a proper, working definition of ‘biological sex’ this ruling is fundamentally flawed and, in practice, will prove dangerous. Trans people will now have to choose which single-gender spaces they enter based on how well they feel they ‘pass’ and will face possible confrontation and potentially assault whichever way they choose. Many will only feel they can use unisex facilities, or increase demand for the already inadequate numbers of disabled facilities. Non-gender-confirming cis people are also going to experience the same thing.
Lamber Butle
“Nobody has lost any rights and it’s deeply irresponsible to scare trans people into thinking that they have.”
EHRC guidance
“The new guidance says that, in places like hospitals, shops and restaurants, “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities”. It also states that trans people should not be left without any facilities to use.”
So you’re wrong.
@Jenny Barnes
Unfortunately you are correct. There was a clash between competing rights – those demanding the right to single-sex spaces against those demanding the right to use single-sex spaces that align with how they identify – and the Supreme Court judgement upheld the rights of the former at the expense of the latter. Since current practice in many settings was not to enforce single-sex spaces, the result is that those settings will now have to protect single-sex spaces or face legal action for not upholding the Equality Act – this will impact on those who have become accustomed to use facilities from which they will now be excluded.
As I understand it, the Liberal Democrats would wish to have legislation passed to have the effect of reversing the judgement, so that those demanding single-sex spaces will lose the right to single-sex spaces that this judgement gives them.
When I read Davey and Jardine’s responses, I considered writing to give up my party membership because I don’t feel supported. The Lib Dem voices here are much better. I’m a trans man, who transitioned over 15 years ago. I’ve never had any trouble just getting on with my life until the last 2 or 3 years. The thing really is, that if you have to second guess something as simple as just going in the gents for a pee, leaving the house becomes a trial. I’m not going to use disabled facilities as I am not disabled and that is unfair on those who need the facilities. Also there’s a feeling of being othered by being forced to seek out gender neutral facilities. I look like a man and don’t want to be thinking about being trans 24/7. We have lives, jobs, better things to think about. This whole situation is exhausting.
approx 170,000 in this country alone have something other than straightforward XX or XY chromosomes, and this is only a small part of the gender-diverse picture. Looking at the National library of medicine website you find Chromosomal variations of sex chromosomes (so-called “sex chromosome aneuploidies,” or SCAs) are far more common than most people realize. As a group, SCAs affect about 1 in 400 live births—roughly 0.25% of all babies—even before you count mosaic and rarer forms. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11177749/?utm_source=chatgpt.com