Women and gender: Supreme Court ruling, one year on
This debate is part of Battle of Ideas North 2026.
The Supreme Court judgement in April 2025, in the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, was seen as a ‘landmark ruling’ in clarifying the definition of a woman as based on biological sex at birth. The hope was that by clarifying the law, women’s rights, including single-sex spaces, would be protected and, more broadly, gender ideology would wither on the vine. Yet, almost a year on, many institutions have failed to stand by the definition of ‘woman’ set out in the ruling, instead promoting ‘trans-inclusive culture’. They have ignored the need to provide single-sex spaces for women, and retain policies that fuel discrimination against gender-critical staff, volunteers and visitors.
Is this surprising when the UK government itself seems reluctant to fully pursue implementation of the ruling? Having been in possession for months of clear recommendations from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Bridget Phillipson, the women and equalities secretary, has still to publish guidance on single-sex spaces. Similarly, the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, has been criticised for her weak protection of women’s sport. Her stance focuses on ‘including everybody’ and continues to suggest that the issue of trans athletes competing alongside biological women is not clear cut. The Scottish government has been similarly tardy in implementing the ruling, even though the judgement was specifically against it.
What’s more, public-sector institutions, along with charities, NGOs and trade unions, seem reluctant to accept biological sex as real, and insist on an ideological commitment to trans-inclusive policies, at the expense of women. Many schools and teachers openly defy the ruling in order to support trans ideology, often acting behind parents’ backs.
Recently, trade unions and organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing and Unison have either openly supported action against gender-critical feminists and single-sex spaces or retreated into bureaucratic cowardice, saying action is not possible until guidance is issued. The recent victory at an employment tribunal of eight nurses from Darlington against their NHS trust bosses, who penalised them for challenging the use of the single-sex changing rooms by a trans-identifying male, is a positive. But why do workers need to resort to the courts and tribunals to ensure institutions and workplaces enforce the law?
Why are governments and institutions so willing to drag their feet on implementing a ruling given by the highest court in the land? What are the consequences of this for the rule of law, even democracy? How can we rescue institutions from the capture of trans and other ideologies? What is the balance between lawfare and building a wider political movement capable of pushing through change?
LISTEN TO THE DEBATE
