Supreme Court judges are considering how women are defined in law in a landmark case brought by Scottish campaigners.

It is the culmination of a long-running legal dispute, which began with relatively specific legislation in the Scottish Parliament, but which could have major ramifications across the UK.

This will make it clear exactly how the law treats trans people, and what it actually means to go through the gender recognition process.

and the impact it may have on the operation of single-sex venues and services, and how measures aimed at combating discrimination will operate in the future

The case began on Tuesday, with judges hearing from lawyers acting on behalf of the For Women Scotland campaign group, which is concerned about the potential impact of trans rights on women’s rights.

Legal representatives for the Scottish Government will address the court on Wednesday before the judges retire to consider their decision – which could take several weeks.

At the most basic level, the case centers on what “sex” actually means in law.

Is it about biology and chromosomes assigned at birth, or is it connected to ideas of gender identity and the gender identity process?

The Gender Recognition Act of 2004 established the process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate – stating that it is equivalent to gender reassignment “for all purposes”.

When someone gets a Gender Recognition Certificate, “if the acquired sex is male gender, the person’s sex becomes male, and if it is female gender, the person’s sex becomes female”.

Then came the Equality Act of 2010 to establish legal protections against discrimination for specific groups – including “gender”, “sexual orientation” and “gender reassignment” as protected characteristics.

It simply defines a woman as “a woman of any age”.

There has been a lot of controversy over how these two pieces of legislation sit together.

When the Equality Act talks about “sex”, does it mean biological sex – or legal, “certified” sex as defined by the GRA?

The case will not change the letter of the law, but the decision on how it should be interpreted could have major implications for the operation of all types of public bodies and services, and could be open to other legal challenges.

There has been particular controversy in light of the debate over whether the gender recognition process should be streamlined – there was a lengthy wrangle at Holyrood over “self-identification” reforms.

they were finally Blocked by UK governmentWhich claimed they would have a “significant impact” on the Equality Act.

But it plays along many other lines with Scotland The Rape Crisis Network is in turmoil right now About how its centers define women and provide single-sex spaces.

Public bodies have expressed frustration about the lack of clarity regarding the interpretation of the law, as they are left to make policy on their own.

Police Scotland – which has faced questions about how it treats transgender people Criticized for “lack of direction” Discussions took place with politicians in Edinburgh and London on how to reconcile the gender recognition process with the Equality Act.

With political leaders becoming more cautious about the topic and the heated debates that go along with it, it has ultimately fallen to the courts to decide.

The issue being considered by the court is whether “a person with a full gender recognition certificate – which recognizes that their gender is female – is a ‘woman’ for the purposes of the Equality Act”.

Aidan O’Neill Casey, representing For Women Scotland, described that premise as a “legal fiction”.

He argued for the “common sense” meaning of the terms male and female, and told the court that sex is an “immutable biological state”.

KC said that definition of sex is necessary to protect women’s rights.

for scotland women Discussion The Equality Act 2004 removes the GRA because of a subsection of the Act that allows it to be subject to “provision made by any other Act”.

Mr O’Neill denied that the Scotland case for women was “transphobic”, arguing that Parliament’s intention for equality legislation could never have been an “absurd or meaningless outcome”.

He gave the example of a heterosexual man achieving complete GRC. She said she would theoretically become a same-sex attracted woman. The court heard that this would leave gay unions “with no option but to admit born males into their ranks”.

The lawyer said that this and several other examples he cited were evidence of patriarchy in action. He said the court should not “surrender” to patriarchy, urging judges to “confront” it.

She raised the issue of women-only spaces such as hospital wards, asylums and prisons and said entry could only be decided by the “paperwork” of the GRC.

The Scottish Government meanwhile essentially logic Both pieces of legislation are clear in their language, and lawmakers knew what they were doing when they passed them.

It said there is “no express provision” in the Equality Act to affect the wording of the GRA that a certificate changes someone’s gender.

Indeed it says there are “clear indications” in the 2010 Act that the GRA “is intended to continue to have full effect” – “that is, through a person acquiring another gender, reflecting the change in the case law “His penis”.

Ruth Crawford Casey will speak for the Scottish Government.

Five judges, headed by court president Lord Reed, will hear their arguments and retire to consider them before issuing a judgment at a later date.

This issue has become so emotional because people on both sides see it as a threat to their identity.

The most recent census found that there were 19,990 people in Scotland who were trans, or had a trans history – less than 0.5% of the adult population.

The figure for England and Wales is also around 0.5% – 262,000 people told the last census that their gender identity and birth sex were different.

There is uncertainty over the exact figures, with census returns believed to be overstated – but we know for certain that 1,088 full gender identity certificates were granted across the UK in 2023-24, up from 867 the previous year. Is more.

This figure has been rising since application costs were cut – and in the context of this case, those with a full GRC are central.

Furthermore, equality groups emphasize that there are many minority groups that are protected by the Equality Act, and consider this case to be potentially “the thin end of the wedge” that could undermine their rights.

For trans people, they say it could eliminate their protections against discrimination under their reassigned gender.

If someone has a Gender Recognition Certificate that certifies that she is a woman, is she entitled to protection from gender discrimination under the Equality Act? Can they claim equal pay as a woman?

Britain’s first trans judge – who failed applied to intervene In this case – he is said to have lodged a pension claim on similar lines against the Ministry of Justice.

Meanwhile, women’s groups also say that the decision will impact a large group – virtually half the population.

They say this could affect the operation of single-sex services and venues. Things like support groups for victims of sexual abuse can legally justify excluding men simply because of the protections of the Equality Act.

Campaigners say policies on everything from hospital wards to refugees and sporting events may have to change or leave themselves open to legal challenges depending on the court’s decision.

Gay groups – protected under “sexual orientation” in the 2010 Act – also say it could affect their ability to form exclusive clubs.

This may also have political implications.

Some groups see this case as a reason for lawmakers to amend the Equality Act to clarify the actual wording of the law.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission – the national equality regulator, which is intervening in the case – has called for it.

He says that the MP Did They intended to include people with gender recognition certificates as if they had changed their gender when they passed the Act in 2010, but they may not have appreciated the consequences that would “jeopardize women’s rights and interests.” and are attracted to same-sex people”.

He says this is “a completely unsatisfactory situation, which Parliament must urgently address”.

But some other equality groups oppose “reopening” the Equality Act, seeing it as a move that could reduce the rights of protected groups.

And it is not clear whether governments have the political will to consider the issue.

The Scottish Government has tried to lead the way before, when Nicola Sturgeon took the lead with self-identification reforms.

But his successor as First Minister has backed away from these issues, with current First Minister John Swinney calling for a four-nation approach and pushing plans to ban conversion therapy onto the UK Government’s desk.

At UK level, rewriting the Equality Act was a Conservative pledge during the election campaign – and not Sir Keir Starmer’s equality pledge.

Indeed Labour’s manifesto promised to “simplify and reform” the gender recognition process, eliminating “degradations”.

As well as influencing the interpretation of existing law, the decision in this case could reignite calls for parliamentary reform.