What really happens to your money when you divorce? A new study has the answers, and the findings are eye-opening.
In a judgment (UK Supreme Court Judgment: For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16) that will shape sex and gender law for years to come, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the Equality Act 2010 defines “woman” and “sex” by biological sex, not legal gender identity or possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
The case, For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, directly addressed whether the Scottish Government could expand the legal definition of “woman” for public board appointments. The answer was a firm no.
Let’s explore what the Court said, and why it matters for women, trans rights, and the law.
The Background: Who Can Be Counted as a “Woman” on Public Boards?
The Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 set targets to increase the number of women on public boards. The statutory guidance defined “woman” broadly, including people “living as a woman” and those undergoing gender reassignment.
After the first version of the guidance was ruled unlawful (FWS1), new guidance was issued stating that “woman” was to be understood as in the Equality Act 2010, which defines a woman as “a female of any age” (EA 2010, s.212). However, it also said trans women with a GRC would count as women under the Act.
FWS challenged this new guidance. Their position: “woman” means biological female, and trans women (including those with a GRC) do not come within that definition under the Equality Act.
The Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Court unanimously allowed the appeal. It ruled:
“The meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex, as any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate.” – [264]
Thus, the Scottish Ministers’ guidance was incorrect in asserting that trans women with a GRC could be counted as women under the Equality Act or the 2018 Act.
Core Legal Reasoning and Key Quotes (with Paragraph References)
- Sex in Law Means Biological Sex
“As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.” – [168]
“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way.” – [172]
The Court stressed that allowing a different meaning of “woman” in different sections of the Equality Act would be “absurd”:
“The Court rejects the suggestion of the Inner House that ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ can refer to biological sex in some sections of the EA 2010, and certificated sex in others.” – [189]
- Biological Meaning Is Required for EA 2010 to Work
The Court provided examples:
- Pregnancy:
“Only biological women can become pregnant. Therefore, these provisions are unworkable unless ‘man’ and ‘woman’ have a biological meaning.” – [177]
- Single-Sex Spaces:
“Separate spaces and single sex services… including changing rooms, hostels and medical services… require a biological interpretation of ‘sex’ in order to function coherently.” – [211]
- Education, Sport, Armed Forces:
“Similar confusion and impracticability arise… in relation to single sex higher education institutions [226], sport [232], the public sector equality duty [237], and the armed forces [245].”
- Section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act Doesn’t Override Biological Sex in the EA 2010
“Section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 allows the rule in section 9(1) to be disapplied… where the terms, context and purpose of the relevant legislation show that it does.” – [99]
“The EA 2010 is such a provision.” – [264]
In other words, even though a GRC changes someone’s legal sex for many purposes, it does not change the meaning of “woman” in the EA 2010 when it would make that Act unworkable.
- Equality Must Be Practical
“It is important that the EA 2010 is interpreted in a clear and consistent way… so that those who are subject to its obligations can perform them in a practical way.” – [151]
“A certificated sex interpretation would… create two sub-groups within those who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment… Those seeking to perform their obligations… would have no obvious means of distinguishing between the two.” – [198]–[203]
What This Means for Family Law in England
This case isn’t just about public boards. It directly affects many areas of family and equality law, including:
- Women-Only Spaces
Support services like domestic abuse refuges, single-sex hostels, and women’s health clinics may continue to operate based on biological sex.
- Legal Clarity Around Parental Rights
Provisions relating to maternity, pregnancy, and parenting will remain rooted in biological sex, as intended by Parliament.
“The provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity… are based on the fact of pregnancy and giving birth to a child.” – [177]
- Fairness in Associations and Education
Associations or institutions aimed at biological women—including sports teams and universities—are on stronger legal footing to maintain clear, sex-based membership rules.
What About Trans People?
The Court was clear: this ruling does not remove protections from trans people.
“Trans people are protected from discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment.” – [248]
“A trans woman can claim sex discrimination because she is perceived to be a woman.” – [259]
So while “woman” in the Equality Act means biological female, trans people still benefit from robust protection under the gender reassignment provisions of the Act.
Final Thoughts: Legal Clarity, Not Exclusion
This judgment is not about excluding anyone—it’s about ensuring that the law works and is applied consistently. The Court has clarified that the meaning of “woman” in sex-based protections cannot be stretched to include individuals who are not biologically female, even if they possess a GRC.
In the words of the Court:
“The meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex… any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate.” – [264]
For family lawyers, women’s advocates, service providers, and policymakers, this decision restores the clarity Parliament originally intended—and provides firmer ground to stand on when sex matters.
Full Case Citation: For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16
Speak to a Specialist
Paradigm Family Law, have a team of experienced and highly recommended family lawyers, we work on a fixed-fee basis because we believe fairniss is key. Our partnership with WhatWouldAJudgeSay.com aligns perfectly with that principle—bringing transparency and structure to one of life’s most difficult transitions – as “fairness” is not an attitude .
If you’re considering divorce or separation and want to better understand your financial position, speak to us—and explore whether an early judicial view could help you navigate the road ahead with clarity.
If you would like more details on this or want to discuss your family law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Frank or Evelyn. Paradigm Family Law offers a free initial consultation with a top-rated family lawyer and our fixed fee solutions cover financial or children proceedings from start to finish. You can call us on 01904 217225 or email us at [email protected].