LONDON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the U.K. equalities law defines a woman as someone born biologically female.<\/p>\n
Justice Patrick Hodge said five judges at the court had ruled unanimously that \u201cthe terms \u2018woman\u2019 and \u2018sex\u2019 in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman.\u201d<\/p>\n
The ruling means that a transgender person with a certificate that recognizes them as female should not be considered a woman for equality purposes.<\/p>\n
The case stems from a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament stating that there should be a 50% female representation on the boards of Scottish public bodies. That law included transgender women in its definition of women.<\/p>\n
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP\u2019s earlier story follows below.<\/p>\n
LONDON (AP) \u2014 <\/p>\n
The U.K. Supreme Court is poised to rule Wednesday in a legal challenge focusing on the definition of a woman in a long-running dispute between a women\u2019s rights group and the Scottish government. <\/p>\n
Five judges at Britain’s highest court are scheduled to rule whether a transgender person with a certificate that recognizes them as female can be regarded as a woman under equality laws.<\/p>\n
While the case centers on Scottish law, the group bringing the challenge, For Women Scotland (FWS), has said its outcomes could have U.K.-wide consequences for sex-based rights as well as everyday single-sex services such as toilets and hospital wards. <\/p>\n
The case stems from a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament stating that there should be a 50% female representation on the boards of Scottish public bodies. That law included transgender women in its definition of women.<\/p>\n
The women’s rights group successfully challenged that law, arguing that its redefinition of \u201cwoman\u201d went beyond parliament’s powers. <\/p>\n
Scottish officials then issued guidance stating that the definition of \u201cwoman\u201d included a transgender woman with a gender recognition certificate.<\/p>\n
FWS sought to overturn that.<\/p>\n
\u201cNot tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise of 50% men, and 50% men with certificates, yet still lawfully meet the targets for female representation,” the group\u2019s director Trina Budge said. <\/p>\n
The challenge was rejected by a court in 2022, but the group was granted permission last year to take its case to the Supreme Court. <\/p>\n
Aidan O\u2019Neill, a lawyer for FWS, told the Supreme Court judges \u2014 three men and two women \u2014 that under the Equality Act \u201csex\u201d should refer to biological sex and as understood \u201cin ordinary, everyday language.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOur position is your sex, whether you are a man or a woman or a girl or a boy is determined from conception in utero, even before one\u2019s birth, by one\u2019s body,\u201d he said on Tuesday. “It is an expression of one\u2019s bodily reality. It is an immutable biological state.\u201d<\/p>\n