Govanhill community reacts to UK Supreme Court decision on gender
The UK Supreme Court’s ruling that legal definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are based on biological sex has sparked fierce debate across Scotland. Trans rights advocates, politicians, community groups and legal experts warn the decision oversimplifies complex realities, putting trans people at risk of exclusion from essential spaces and services.
Damaged trans pride flag still flying in the Southside
By Devon McCole | Photos by Iain McLellan
Supreme Court Ruling and initial reactions
On 16 April, the UK Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling that the legal definitions of a ‘man’ and ‘woman’ under the Equality Act 2010 are based exclusively on biological sex assigned at birth, not gender identity.
And, despite First Minister John Swinney’s statement that the ruling provides clarity on sex and gender, many Scots disagree and many more are unsure of what this ruling will mean or the impact it will have on the trans community and beyond.
For Women Scotland’s legal challenge
The move came after some years of campaigning from self-described feminist group For Women Scotland (FWS), who challenged The Scottish Government’s legislation from 2022 which stated that individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) identifying as female are legally considered a woman under the Equality Act 2010.
Their main concern is that trans women should not be considered women in spaces such as single-sex refuges, based on worries around women and girls safety as well as upholding fairness when it comes to competitive sporting events.
Gender Recognition Reform and its implications
The introduction of GRCs went hand-in-hand with the new Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) legislation from 2022, which allowed people to change their gender with a simple application, making it more respectful to and easier for trans people to be recognised as their true gender without unnecessary barriers.
Arguments around sex-based rights and safety
FWS challenged the introduction of GRCs, expressing their desire for an individual's sex to be defined by their reproductive organs at birth as opposed to their gender identity, even after receiving gender affirming surgery. They argued that trans women in female only spaces (like refuges and support groups for women) would compromise the safety, privacy and dignity of cisgender women and girls.
Public restrooms unfortunately have become the main sticking point in the debate online, with the FWS and others being of the position that the presence of transgender women in single-sex spaces risks making cisgender women feel unsafe or uncomfortable, especially those with trauma from abuse at the hands of cis men.
Broader policy implications and concerns
It marks a defining moment in the ongoing debate over gender identity and legal definitions, with implications for various public policies: like strip searches on trans women being conducted by male officers, as well as who is legally allowed to use gendered spaces – which raises legitimate concerns around trans men and women being excluded from both men’s and women’s spaces on the basis of others’ fears and feelings surrounding trans people. People are also left wondering how the new guidance will be enforced.
Community responses
Trans ally poster found in Southside following UK Supreme Court ruling
The news has caused an uproar with several charities, local groups and Southsiders voicing their concerns online.
Including local internet radio station, Radio Buena Vida, who released a statement following the ruling: ‘Buena Vida completely exists to kick back against the division, ignorance and hatred in society to be a place where everyone is welcome, regardless of their gender, sexuality, race, religion, belief, disability or difference. We stand in solidarity with the trans community on the back of this week’s UK ‘supreme’ court ruling which makes life even more challenging and dangerous for an already marginalised group.’
Govanhill Baths Community Development Trust echoed their message, reiterating their commitment to inclusion: ‘Following the UK Supreme Court decision, Govanhill Baths Community Trust wants to make clear that this does not have any impact on GBCT’s services or values. We continue to welcome, value and respect trans people in our community, alongside all other community members. Govanhill Baths supports all communities experiencing exclusion and discrimination.’
Changes in sports policy
We are already seeing the impact of last month’s ruling in the sporting world; as of 1 May the Football Association (FA) in England have said they are changing their policy in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling, meaning trans women will be excluded from women’s football starting next season.
Concerns beyond the trans community
However, the implications of the ruling could extend far beyond having an impact on the trans community alone. Many people are legitimately concerned about how this ruling will affect cis women and men who do not present as traditionally feminine or masculine, especially where strip searches and gendered spaces and services are concerned. This point is particularly relevant to intersex people, who have reproductive anatomy that doesn’t fit into a binary male or female sex classification.
The Glasgow Sunflowers speak out
The Glasgow Sunflowers, an inclusive community baseball team in the Southside, open to women, non-binary and trans people, highlighted their concerns on the wider implications of the ruling.
Emma Cairns and Heather Hilditch, Co-Chairs of the group said: “The Supreme Court decision is an ideological one. The decision doesn’t serve anyone. It doesn’t stop, prevent or support victims of violence. It will mean that doctors are less likely to prescribe necessary, life-saving medication to everyone. It will mean more scared, isolated trans children.
“What it does do is legitimise unfounded moral panic about all trans people in this country. It will mean all women will be policed more for how they look, think and act. It emboldens the policing and control of all women by defining a ‘woman’ through misogynist, racist, homophobic and transphobic ideals. We know that trans people exist and always will. No Supreme Court, in this nation or others, can legislate us out of existence.”
Political figures weigh in
Mhairi Hunter, sitting Cllr for the Southside Central ward, who has been vocal in support of the trans community, is less certain of what the impact of the ruling would be and is keen to see more analysis of it: "But I completely understand why trans people could be feeling more vulnerable now and I reiterate my and the Council administration's support for the trans community.
“It's important to note that there is no change to the protections against discrimination provided to trans people in the Equality Act. It does seem to me that yesterday's ruling removes the pretext used by the UK Government to block implementation of the GRR legislation agreed by a super majority of MSPs in 2022 so perhaps we may finally see some progress there.”
The future of gender reform in Scotland
Mhairi is hopeful that, because the UK Government has blocked the GRR law over a conflict with a UK wide law, this new ruling might show that their reason for doing so doesn't hold up and that could open the door for the GRR law to finally be put into action in Scotland.
A point Humzah Yousaf, First Minster at the time of the 2023 blocking of the GRR Bill by the Court of Session (Scotland’s highest civil court), also shared in, expressing his concern that the 2023 ruling was an attack on Scottish autonomy, describing it as a dark day for devolution. Current First Minster John Swinney, however, has been less defiant than the former FM, accepting the ruling and promising to work within its bounds.
And Mhairi isn’t the only one pointing out the confusion this latest ruling has created and the contradictions it has come up against. The UK’s first ever trans judge, Victoria McLeod, in an interview with The Guardian said the ruling has created ‘chaos.’
EHRC and legal contradictions
For Victoria, the UK Supreme Court ruling contradicts the EHRC’s (the UK’s equality watchdog) position, which is that it is fair for the Equality Act to allow for single-sex services, in some cases, but emphasises that any exclusions of trans women must be ‘justifiable and proportionate.’
Essentially the EHRC has highlighted that the Supreme Court’s ruling is too simple and poses a real risk of harming trans people. It neglects their needs over a one-size-fits all ruling which excludes them from services and spaces that they could have accessed more easily without the new guidance.
Victoria has also highlighted the Building Regulation Act 2010’s additional requirement, Requirement T1, which states that all buildings must have male and female only bathrooms as opposed to having all gender neutral bathrooms. It has not made it compulsory for developers to build a third, inclusive gender neutral toilet but states that if developers want to build those bathrooms, they could if they wanted to.
This means, under the new ruling, that trans men and women would either be forced into using the gendered bathroom which matches their assigned gender at birth, but not their gender presentation, or the disabled toilets. Many public buildings also don’t have disabled bathrooms, plus those that do tend to have very limited numbers of toilets for disabled people to use.
Appeal to European Court of Human Rights
This has led Victoria, who expressed her concern that disabled people were excluded from this ruling, to start an appeal against the decision to the European Court of Human Rights. But the move was mainly fuelled by the fact that Victoria, a retired trans judge, was denied permission by the UK Supreme Court to intervene in the case about the legal status of trans women under the Equality Act, something she says prevented a fair trial (Article 6 of ECHR: right to a fair trial) at the Supreme Court.
LGBTQ+ badges with politcial messages of power and pride
Final reflections on the ruling’s impact
It’s not hard then, to see how this feels like an attempt to erase trans people from existence, something the Glasgow Sunflowers and others have expressed. Given the implications of the ruling, it certainly seems like trans people are being forced into spaces they may be unwelcome in, or spaces designed only for them – spaces which don’t exist everywhere because they’re not considered essential – pushing trans people into the shadows.
One thing is certain, whilst some women have said they now feel safer following the ruling, it has made others feel less safe and far more uncertain. The news has the potential to turn the tide on how people view the trans community and women in general – that is, with much more suspicion. It acts as a justification for the exclusion and fear of trans people by delegitimising their lived experiences and sense of self.
At a time where the LGBTQ+ community, especially trans people, are under heavy scrutiny in an increasingly paranoid and conservative social landscape, the decision has left many feeling defeated by a ruling considered to be a roll-back of LGBTQ+ rights and protections, as opposed to a solidifying of women’s rights and protections.
The ruling is too simple to meet everyone’s needs and has tipped the scales unfavourably against trans people, an incredibly small percentage of people, who have inadvertently been labelled as too dangerous to share certain spaces with cis gendered women and girls as a result.
LBTQ+ and looking for a safe space where you can find support? Visit wwwlgbtqhealth.org.uk or call them on 0800 464 7000 for support