FOR Women Scotland (FWS) has lost an appeal in the Court of Session over the legal definition of a woman.
The group had challenged a ruling that transgender women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) can legally be defined as women.
In a written ruling, Lady Dorrian, the Lord Justice Clerk, set out that a person “with a GRC in the female gender” is defined as a woman under the Equality Act (EA) 2010.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak blocks Scottish Government from major AI summit
The appeal was brought after the Gender Critical group lost an initial case on the definition of a woman in legislation that aims to ensure gender balance on public boards.
Lady Haldane has previously ruled, after FWS requested a second judicial review of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland), that the meaning of sex is “not limited to biological or birth sex” but includes those in possession of a GRC.
In a further written judgment, released on Wednesday, Dorrian ruled that guidance under the UK legislation the Gender Recognition Act 2004, “does not conflate” two separate protected characteristics.
“A person with a GRC in their acquired gender possesses the protected characteristic of gender reassignment for the purposes of section 7 EA,” Dorrian (below) wrote in her conclusion.
“Separately, for the purposes of section 11 they also possess the protected characteristic of sex according to the terms of their GRC.
“For the purposes of section 11, individuals without a GRC, whether they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment or not, retain the sex in which they were born.”
Dorrian added that “no conflation” of protected characteristics is involved.
“A person with a GRC in the female gender comes within the definition of “woman” for the purposes of section 11 of the EA, and the guidance issued in respect of the 2018 Act is lawful,” she added.
READ MORE: Dominic Cummings: Covid meetings with devolved leaders 'performance'
“The reclaiming motion is refused.”
FWS said in a statement they were “hugely disappointed” in the ruling.
“We are obviously still analysing the decision and will be speaking to our legal team in due course to consider the possibility of a further challenge,” they added.
We previously told how the gender representation legislation intends to ensure that non-executive members on public boards are made up of at least 50% women.
Scottish ministers had argued that those who were living as a woman or had gone through the GRC process could be defined as a woman within the legislation.
FWS argued that this did not accord with the separate definitions of women and transgender women under the Equality Act 2010 and voiced concerns about implications for single-sex spaces.
The group lost the initial judicial review in 2021, but were successful on appeal. The Scottish Government then revised the legislation, which now states that the definition of “woman” is defined by the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
READ MORE: Ex-top official claims 'hundreds of civil servants' broke Covid rules
This meant that transgender women with a GRC would be considered women under the bill.
This led to FWS calling for a second judicial review, where Haldane ruled in favour of the Scottish Government.
This led to another appeal, which Dorrian ruled against on Wednesday.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel