THE UK Supreme Court on Tuesday began considering a lengthy dispute between campaigners and the Scottish government on the definition of “woman” in law.
The case brought by the “For Women Scotland” campaign group, which believes that sex is biologically immutable, could have widespread implications on highly charged issues surrounding trans rights and how the UK defines gender and sex.
It could also have consequences for the country’s gender-recognition process and access to single-sex spaces for trans people.
The campaigners say the definitions of “woman” in the UK’s 2010 Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 are incompatible.
The 2010 Equality Act protects characteristics including sex, gender and gender reassignment against discrimination, and defines a woman as a “female of any age”.
Under the 2004 act, a gender recognition certificate (GRC) allows trans people to legally change their gender to identify as a man or a woman.
The UK’s top court is being asked to consider whether someone who has transitioned to a female is considered and protected as a woman under the Equality Act.
Gender-critical campaigners argue that while transgender women are protected under the Equality Act, they cannot be afforded all the protections reserved for “women”.
In opening arguments to the court for the campaigners, Aidan O’Neill argued that the conflation of the two would have an impact on single-sex spaces such as women’s shelters and prisons.
Ahead of the hearing, Amnesty International, which is intervening as a third-party on the side of the Scottish government, said “legal gender recognition is a human rights issue”.
“Sections of the media and politicians across parties continue to spend an eye-watering amount of time berating trans people, who are only about one per cent of the population,” the human rights group added.
