​On April 16, 2025, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the terms “man, ””woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, not gender identity — even for transgender individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), a legal document that allows a transgender person to have their affirmed gender legally recognized in the UK. It’s a move that underscores the power of an issue that oxidises the flames of right-wing dogma.

The case arrives amid an already acutely hostile environment for trans people on “TERF island” (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist), as the UK has been dubbed by LGBTQ+ activists. A slew of transphobic rhetoric from politicians and the media alike has contributed to hate crimes against trans people in the UK tripling in the last decade. That’s not to mention the frankly abysmal state of gender-affirming care with waiting times reaching up to five years or more for a first appointment, according to NHS data obtained through freedom of information requests.

Wednesday’s Supreme Court case was brought by the group For Women Scotland (FWS), which is backed financially by JK Rowling, after two Scottish courts rejected its arguments that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female. Up until now, the Scottish government had interpreted “woman” to include transgender women with GRCs. 

In its 88-page ruling, the Supreme Court found this interpretation inconsistent with the Equality Act, saying that legal protections for single-sex spaces — such as hospitals, sports facilities, and shelters — should be based on biological sex at birth. 

The word “biological,” the judgment reads, does not appear in the definitions of man or woman in the Equality Act. Therefore the definition of those words should be understood as “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words correspond[ing] with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman.” Ordinary, one might ask, for whom exactly? This rhetorical move to appeal to “the ordinary” is textbook patriarchy and serves to narrow the definition of what a woman is. When the courts start deciding who counts as a woman, womanhood becomes something that can be policed.

Despite the fact that Lord Hodge counselled against reading the judgement as a triumph of one or more groups, the gender-critical campaigners who brought the case forward were literally cracking open the champagne on the Parliament Square steps proclaiming a victory for women. 

Susan Smith, a co-founder of FWS, told cheering supporters outside the court: “Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex.” 

Trans rights organizations and human rights advocates, on the other hand, have expressed concern over the potentially far-reaching ramifications of the judgment for trans people and it’s easy to see why. 

“Trans communities are devastated by today’s ruling,” said Helen Belcher, the chair of TransActual, a British trans-led and run organisation focused specifically on working for trans adults. “Irrespective of the small print, the intent seems clear: to exclude trans people wholesale from participating in UK society. Today, we are feeling very excluded.”

Although the exact implications of the ruling are as of yet undefined, it is expected that the ruling will mean that a trans person could be denied access to certain single-sex spaces. Indeed, a Scottish health organisation that is being sued by a nurse it suspended over her response to a trans woman using a female changing room said it had noted the judgement.

Yet, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects gender identity as a component of private life. This could lead to situations where service providers are required to block trans people from accessing services but cannot legally require them to confirm they are trans. Similarly, if a trans person is excluded from a single-sex ward in a hospital and put on the ward relating to their biological sex, this amounts to outing that person as trans. Yet, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 makes it an offence for any individual who has obtained information about a person’s gender identity to disclose their transgender status in a medical setting in the UK without their consent.

The government spokesperson’s words that the ruling “brings clarity and confidence” would be farcical were the judgment not so blatantly a part of the global trend to roll back transgender rights in the name of protecting traditional values or national security. Let’s be clear. This isn’t about clarity; it’s about control. 

Transgender rights, and in particular who counts as a woman, have become a flashpoint in the so-called culture wars, pitting trans people’s rights as encroaching upon women’s safety. The major threat to women, trans and cis, always was and still is what bell hooks refers to as “imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.” A bioessentialist ruling that defines a woman, for all intents and purposes, by her genitals, is devastating not just for trans women but for anyone fighting for equality. 

This ruling is not the “victory” for women that Tory MP Kemi Badenoch branded it on X. Yet, we can’t rely on the Labour Party, who have betrayed trans people at every turn, to stand up for them. Instead, we need a global mass movement that unflinchingly fights for trans rights. An attack on trans rights is an attack on human rights; we need full solidarity from the entire working class.