CIVICUS discusses a UK court ruling on gender definitions with Keyne Walker, political and strategic director at TransActual, a trans-led civil society organisation that focuses on healthcare and legal protections.

On 16 April, the UK Supreme Court ruled that under the 2010 Equality Act, the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ refer exclusively to biological sex, not gender identity. This means trans women may be excluded from single-sex spaces such as bathrooms and shelters. Trans rights advocates fear this will reinforce stigma and discrimination, erode legal protections and embolden transphobic groups.

What does the Supreme Court ruling state?

The ruling says that under the Equality Act, trans people should be treated as a separate legal category, neither men nor women. It uses the term ‘biological sex’ without defining it, claiming it’s self-explanatory. But it’s not. There’s simply no scientific consensus that easily reduces sex to a binary. The court rejected more precise definitions in favour of a ‘know it when I see it’ approach, which is effectively a licence to harass and exclude anyone who doesn’t conform to subjective ideas of normality.

The government has also suggested that organisations with over 25 members could be prohibited from including trans people if they identify as lesbian or gay. This is a clear attempt to police who counts as ‘truly’ homosexual and divide the LGBTQI+ community. The decision risks rolling back trans rights and protections for gay and lesbian people.

What are the practical consequences of this ruling?

We’re already seeing the consequences. This ruling risks making public life humiliating or inaccessible for trans people. It could push many out of jobs, housing and community spaces, and strip away their dignity and safety in everyday life. For instance, the British Transport Police have indicated trans women may now be strip-searched by male officers. In a system already struggling with abuse and mistrust, this threatens all women, not just trans women. It creates a climate where anyone who looks different could be targeted.

We still don’t know what this means for discrimination based on perception, for marriages, pensions or the legal protections offered by a Gender Recognition Certificate. We’ve already sent a letter to the prime minister listing 17 key legal questions raised by this decision, and many more have emerged since then.

How does this ruling reflect on the UK’s approach to trans rights?

It shows how deeply anti-trans ideology has influenced our legal and political systems. The court’s decision to treat ‘biological sex’ as obvious, ignoring both science and the original intent of the Equality Act, is deeply concerning. Even one of the civil servants who helped draft the law has said the court misinterpreted it. And yet, the head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a politically appointed figure with a track record of anti-trans rhetoric, has insisted that questioning the ruling is unacceptable. That’s a frighteningly authoritarian shift.

What’s particularly troubling is that this contradicts all the lower court rulings in the case, which found the anti-trans arguments incoherent. So why did the Supreme Court come to a different conclusion? Beyond ideological bias, it may have wanted to end the legal back-and-forth by handing the issue over to politicians. But rather than solving the issue, it’s only created more confusion.

We’re now entering a dangerous phase of lawfare where trans people will challenge exclusions and anti-trans groups will sue over inclusion. One of these cases could end up at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the only court that can overrule the UK Supreme Court. It’s important to remember that in 2002, the ECHR ruled that the UK couldn’t treat trans people as a ‘third sex’, which led to the Gender Recognition Act. This ruling clearly contradicts that, so it could be overturned.

How have institutions and the public responded so far?

Institutions and businesses are not rushing to implement the most extreme interpretations of the ruling. Several public venues have said they won’t police bathroom use. Others are waiting for further court decisions.

The organisations most eager to adopt anti-trans policies, such as parts of the police and healthcare system, are often those that trans people already avoid because of past discrimination. Even within the National Health Service, many professionals are sceptical about creating separate ‘third spaces’ for trans patients. Most lack the funding or infrastructure to do so anyway.

On a more positive note, there have been significant acts of solidarity. Civil society’s response has been powerful. Tens of thousands of people have protested, spoken out in their workplaces, written open letters and stood in solidarity. Academics, artists, feminist scholars and scientists have been particularly vocal in pushing back against this dehumanising shift.

How is TransActual supporting affected people, and what help is needed?

and exclusion. We’re connecting affected people with legal aid groups and building a database of case studies to inform advocacy and political pressure. We’re also developing resources to help people understand and assert their rights.

Importantly, we’re not doing this alone. Groups such as Gendered Intelligence and Not A Phase are offering inclusive community spaces and activities as well. The LGBT+ Switchboard is providing crisis support, the Trans Legal Clinic is giving legal advice and across the country, local mutual aid groups are stepping up to meet immediate needs.

International support can make a real difference. When foreign governments, institutions and medical associations speak up for trans rights, it strengthens our arguments at home. It shows the UK is isolating itself by aligning with far-right ideologies embraced by the likes of Donald Trump and Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán – and nobody wants to be in that company.

Ultimately, global solidarity, from legal challenges to political statements to simple acts of compassion, can help turn the tide. Because trans rights are human rights, and those don’t stop at borders.