Transgender rights under threat as UK Supreme Court declares sex binary in legal landmark

On April 16, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, with the concept of sex itself being defined by judges as ‘binary’. This ruling came about after the Scottish government included transgender women in quotas to ensure gender balance on public sector boards. Campaign group For Women Scotland, argued that sex-based protections should only apply to people born female. Judges were thus tasked with deciding on the correct interpretation of ‘sex’ and ‘woman’ in the main piece of legislation setting out sex-based legal protections. They ruled that the definition of sex as used in the Equality Act 2010 is ‘binary’ and decided by biology. In short, a person who was not born as a biological female cannot obtain the legal protections the Act affords to women by changing their gender with a Gender Recognition Certificate. The updated guidance is set to be issued by the summer, with widespread implications for trans women who will most likely be barred from participating in women’s sports and using women-only toilets and changing spaces.

Despite Falkner’s assertion, trans rights activists have said that the court’s ruling could bring the UK more in line with a broader anti-trans movement

Lady Kisher Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, claimed that the ruling would give “clarity” for public services and spaces, yet trans people still have clear protection under the legislation: “They are covered through gender reassignment…and they’re also covered by sex discrimination.” On the risk that trans people will no longer be able to use facilities designed for either male or female, she insisted that trans rights organisations should push for more neutral third spaces, “but I think the law is quite clear that if a service provider says we’re offering a women’s toilet, that trans people should not be using that single-sex facility.” Despite Falkner’s assertion, trans rights activists have said that the court’s ruling could bring the UK more in line with a broader anti-trans movement.

The UK Supreme Court ruling is not a singular anomaly in the wider global attitude towards trans rights; it has remained a small, marginalised community, constantly receiving hatred and violence across the world. The US election results of November 2024 brought unprecedented vitriol into the public sphere, leaving many transgender people feeling especially prosecuted and vulnerable. Campaign rhetoric demonised the transgender community, stoking prejudice and fear. With the election outcome now cemented, fear in the transgender community has turned into panic on a global scale arising from anxieties surrounding President Trump’s campaign restricting trans rights. Tiffany Chenneville, a licensed psychologist and former fellow at the American Psychological Foundation, spoke about the persistent negative framing of the trans community during and after the election: “There is a feeling of rejection and a lack of support. And sometimes those negative stigmas become internalised, and they feel even more marginalised and alone. I think that allies, friends, and family members of this community need to especially now provide that unconditional support.”

Despite the UK attempting to be more polite with its transphobia, its content and intent often mirror that of the US: a systematic rollback of transgender rights under the guise of legal clarity and public safety

In the US, many transgender people fear losing access to essential treatments; more than half of the states have some restrictions on gender-affirming care, some carrying potential felony charges. The risk of these restrictions becoming more severe will have detrimental effects on not just the transgender community, but everyone. Despite the UK attempting to be more polite with its transphobia, its content and intent often mirror that of the US: a systematic rollback of transgender rights under the guise of legal clarity and public safety. While clouded in legal terminology and judicial neutrality, the Supreme Court ruling reflects a deeper cultural and political shift, one that illustrates transgender identities as threats rather than as realities deserving equal dignity and protection.

Across Europe and parts of Asia, right-wing parties have increasingly used anti-trans rhetoric as a unifying cultural wedge, arguing that gender identity debates threaten national traditions or family values. Legal decisions such as the UK’s may encourage other governments to follow suit under the pretence of establishing definitive legal frameworks, while actually undermining the already fragile safety net that protects vulnerable communities.

Less than 1% of the UK’s population identifies as transgender, therefore the persistence to continue to marginalise and prosecute trans people makes little sense

Reducing the category and definition of women to biology is dangerous and harmful to all women, not just trans women. As a cisgender woman, my safety in public and private spaces has never been determined by ‘biology’ – what threatens my safety and countless other women’s is the men who choose to attack us. Less than 1% of the UK’s population identifies as transgender, therefore the persistence to continue to marginalise and prosecute trans people makes little sense. Restricting transgender women from being able to use female-only public spaces under the guise of ‘protecting women’ is an unsubstantiated argument. Women’s safety is already under threat in public spaces: men who truly wish to harm women do not need to dress as a woman under the appearance of being transgender to enter a female-only bathroom or changing room; they already invade these spaces to assault and harm women. In short, the transgender community is not the problem and attempting to erase their existence will only cause further damage and danger to all women.

Legal clarity should not come at the cost of erasing people’s lived realities; now is a critical time for communities to foster belonging and resilience. Ultimately, the UK Supreme Court ruling signals a critical juncture: one that demands both vigilance and solidarity. Whether the future of transgender rights is defined by exclusion or empathy will depend on the collective response of societies not just to policies, but to the people behind them.