Changing rooms, sports, rights: why biological sex now takes precedence in Great Britain

Finally, there is legal clarity in the UK: the word “woman” refers to sex, not gender. But contrary to some claims, the rights of trans people are unchanged, secure and affirmed.

This piece was originally published in French on 17 April 2025. It was written for an audience that might be less familiar with the legal proceedings and the background to them.

The UK Supreme Court has finally affirmed what was once widely accepted: a woman is defined by her biological sex. This week*, following months of deliberation, five of the most senior judges in the land handed down their 88-page judgment. It surely marks a turning point after a period of what some might call collective madness, when the rights of women were seemingly open to challenge by anyone who claimed them. In the UK, at least, it appears that the era of transgender activism dominating the discourse is over.

The judges’ reasoning is lengthy but momentous. They held that the terms “man”, “woman”, and “sex” in British equalities law refer to biological sex, and not the “certified sex” (their terminology) that a transgender person might have acquired. At a stroke, women’s rights were protected. No longer can a man in the UK brandish a gender recognition certificate and demand that the law must recognise him as a woman as well.

The judges discussed single-sex spaces (including changing rooms, hostels, and medical services), communal accommodation, sport, and women’s groups and associations. In each case, the UK Equality Act 2010 allows service providers to treat men and women differently as long as it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

I think most people would agree that it is a legitimate aim to ask men to undress separately from women. However, before the judgment, men could identify as women – and have that identity recognised by the law – without making any changes to their body. A recent legal case in Scotland involved a female nurse who objected to a male doctor’s presence in the female changing room.

Shockingly, the employer decided to suspend the nurse. Nurse Sandie Peggy took her case to an employment tribunal where she told the panel that she had felt “embarrassed” and “intimidated”. As she might, but until this week, the law was not necessarily on her side. Her employer disputed her claim, dismissing it as “unnecessary and vexatious”.

That case continues, but her employer might not wish to try and defend it any longer. UK law is now clear: female changing rooms are for biological females, not people who might feel female. A biological male who tries to access them can expect to be given his marching orders, and he would be wise to offer an apology and make a swift exit.

The debate over participation in women’s sport – which has raged in the UK as well as elsewhere – is suddenly settled, and we can expect to see no more biological males taking up places and winning prizes. Earlier this month, two transgender players competed in the final of a women’s professional pool competition in the north of England.

Appalling situations like these should now be consigned to history, at least in the United Kingdom. Elsewhere in Europe, the situation continues for now. British court rulings, of course, only apply to the UK. However, if the tide has turned north of the English Channel, legislators in France and elsewhere would be wise to take notice. If single-sex can mean single-sex in Britain, then surely it should mean the same elsewhere.

The case that led to the Supreme Court ruling has been working its way through the lower courts for several years. It was brought by For Women Scotland (FWS), a group of ordinary women, after the Scottish Government passed a law that defined women to include people who were even just thinking about undergoing “a process (or part of a process) for the purposes of becoming female”.

The legislation itself purported to reserve places for women on public boards, but how can that be done without a robust definition of woman? FWS crowdfunded small donations from supporters and sponsors and asked the question again and again.

At the Court of Session in Edinburgh in 2022, Judge Lady Haldane rejected the idea that anyone could “become female” by some vague process, but she ruled that the definition of the female sex could include someone who had received a full gender recognition certificate and hence changed their certified sex. So, trans women could be women if they had been through the due legal process. FWS appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. Hearings were held in November 2024 before the judgment was handed down this week.

Finally, there is clarity and simplicity. Where UK equalities law is concerned, trans women can never be women because women are biologically female, and trans women are biologically male. Sex matters, and sex is biology. This week, women’s groups in the UK have been celebrating loudly and confidently. They have been listened to, and their concerns have been taken seriously.

So, where does this leave trans women? Here I have a personal stake, having transitioned in 2012. Like every other trans woman (with or without legal recognition), I am now excluded from women’s single-sex spaces, ineligible to compete in women’s sports, and ineligible to join groups and associations established for women. Since I did not do those things in any case, the Supreme Court decision makes no difference to me personally.

Other trans women might need to change their practice, and for them, it might be difficult. But if we respect the sex that we identify with, then surely we should respect their rights and stay out? For a time, that was not my practice. I assumed that since I had gone through full gender reassignment surgery – my body resembles a woman’s body these days – I could use women’s spaces without causing awkwardness or embarrassment. That was until a female friend explained to me that she had no problems sharing a space with me, but my presence would make it harder for her to challenge someone she did not think should be there. It would be too easy for an opportunistic man to say, “You let Debbie in, why do you have a problem with me?”

The Supreme Court made it clear that the actual rights of transgender people were not affected by their ruling. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment remains, and it is still unlawful to treat a transgender person less favourably than other people in such things as employment, housing, and the provision of goods and services. We are protected from harassment because we are transgender, and – of course – we are protected if we suffer discrimination because we are perceived to be the other sex.

I would argue that the rights that really matter – to be respected as individuals – will be strengthened following yesterday’s ruling. Quite frankly, British equalities law was an incoherent mess if nobody could be sure what the words “man” and “woman” actually meant. Without certainty, there was a lack of confidence in the law, and that could mean trans people were treated with a degree of suspicion. But now, in the UK, the fudging is over. With rather more certainty in the rather fundamental concepts of “man” and “woman”, we can all try and move forwards with confidence in a legal framework where everyone’s rights can be protected.

---

By Debbie Hayton

Debbie Hayton is a teacher and journalist.

Her book, Transsexual Apostate – My Journey Back to Reality is published by Forum

* This article was first published in French by Le Point on 17 April 2025: Vestiaires, sports, droits : pourquoi le sexe biologique prime désormais en Grande-Bretagne.