Former Supreme Court judge Lord Jonathan Sumption has cautioned against misreading the court’s recent ruling on the definition of “woman” in Scottish legislation. Speaking to BBC Radio 4, he stressed that the court had not taken a position on the ideological debate surrounding sex and gender identity, nor had it imposed a legal requirement to provide single-sex spaces. Rather, the judgement clarified that excluding trans women from such spaces is legally permitted, but not compulsory.
++ Tiny mammal found to shrink bones and brain in cold months
The ruling followed a case brought by For Women Scotland (FWS) against the Scottish government over a law mandating 50 per cent female representation on public boards. Many commentators interpreted the judgement as requiring public services to exclude trans women from female-only spaces. However, Lord Sumption argued that the law allows for such exclusions but does not mandate them. He used sports as an example, saying women’s football or boxing may lawfully restrict participation to biological females, though they are not required to do so.
Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, had earlier suggested that the ruling demanded stricter enforcement of sex-based provisions in hospitals and sports. Lord Sumption refuted this interpretation, noting the Supreme Court had intentionally avoided taking sides in the broader societal debate. He emphasised that service providers could still include trans women without breaching discrimination laws, provided that inclusion does not undermine the legal basis for single-sex services.
++ Trump takes aim at fed chair despite lacking power to remove him
The decision has sparked celebration among some campaigners advocating for sex-based rights, including author JK Rowling, while members of the trans community have voiced alarm. Trans rights activist Jaxon Feeley criticised the ruling’s practicality, arguing that it could lead to confusion and misuse, making single-sex spaces harder to regulate. The debate remains highly polarised, as organisations and public bodies grapple with how to lawfully and respectfully apply the ruling in practice.
