16.04.2025 14:30
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the definition of 'woman' should be based on biological sex. This decision has brought the rights of transgender individuals into conflict with women's rights. The case, which began following an appeal by the NGO 'For Women Scotland', was based on the argument that transgender women who have completed the legal gender transition process should also be recognized as 'women' by the Scottish government.
The UK Supreme Court ruled that the definition of "woman" in legal texts should be based on biological sex. This case, which pits the rights of trans individuals against women's rights, has sparked widespread debate across the country.
The case began with an appeal by a civil society organization advocating for women's rights called "For Women Scotland," against the Scottish government's law regulating women's representation. While the Scottish government argues that trans women who have completed the legal gender transition process should also be recognized as "women," the NGO contended that this approach excludes biological women and sought legal recourse.
The court ruled that the definition of "woman" can only be made based on biological sex, rejecting the Scottish government's expansive interpretation. In announcing the decision, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lord Patrick Hodge, stated that this ruling does not violate the legal rights of trans individuals, but emphasized that biological foundations should be the basis for gender-based legal regulations.
This decision could have significant implications in many areas, such as women's shelters, female wards in hospitals, gender-specific sports competitions, and equality policies in the workplace. It is expected that sports federations and public institutions will take this ruling into account and make new regulations.
The decision has elicited mixed reactions from the British public. Some groups have described the ruling as a "return to biological reality," while trans rights advocates argue that the decision is exclusionary.
The judicial process is being closely monitored in countries like the United States, where similar discussions are ongoing. The ruling is expected to open up discussions about the legal balance between gender identity and biological sex.