Ben Hatton
Live reporter

The Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, in a decision which could have far-reaching implications for who can access single-sex services and spaces.

It 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.

The judges were tasked with deciding on the correct interpretation of “sex” and “woman” in the main piece of legislation setting out sex-based legal protections.

Specifically, they ruled that the definition of sex as used in the Equality Act 2010 is "binary" and decided by biology - 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.

It's important to note that the Act still provides transgender people with protections against discrimination, and that the judges said it was not their place to weigh in on those definitions in the wider public debate.

Our social affairs editor Alison Holt writes that the judgment brings clarity on the law, but the jury is still out on what day-to-day differences it will make.

We're stopping our live coverage now. We appreciate there's been a lot of information and different arguments to digest. If you want to read more, we've recapped the arguments made in the case, its journey to the Supreme Court, and the judges' verdict and reactions to it.

You can also read our main story on the day's events here.

Dr Michael Foran is a lecturer in public law at Glasgow University and his writing was cited in court today.

He tells Radio 4's PM programme: "The decision itself is attempting to answer a question about what the meaning of the words sex, man and woman mean in the Equality Act.

Foran says the Supreme Court has "resoundingly and unanimously" said that the words man, woman and sex in the Equality Act are tied to biology not Gender Recognition Certificates.

He stresses the importance of saying that this does not mean trans gender people have in some way lost legal protection.

"They are protected under our equality law."

He goes on to say: "This judgement has made it clear that it is lawful to exclude biological males from female only services, where those female only services are lawful under the Equality Act. Most public services like toilets will be."

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has released another statement, following on from its earlier remarks.

Its chair Baroness Kishwer Falkner welcomes the "clarity" the ruling brings, and says it'll have "significant implications for the interpretation of Britain’s equality laws".

"This judgment resolves the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court and in our advice to the former Minister for Women and Equalities more than two years ago.

"These include the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations."

She adds that the EHRC will be working "at pace" to incorporate the "implications of this judgment" into its updated code of practice, which is expected to be laid before Parliament before the summer recess.

This code helps service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties under the Equality Act and put them into practice

This morning, Lord Hodge finally set out the position of the UK's highest court on the legal definition of a woman, when he took just shy of 17 minutes to read an 88-page statement.

The verdict? The legal definition of a woman - which was disputed in the context of the Equality Act - is based on biological sex.

You can scroll back through the page to get a sense of the reaction - from women's rights groups' tears and cheers, to trans peoples' concern about an uncertain future.

And, for a reminder of how it all began, here's a video of the moment Lord Hodge announced the much-anticipated judgement:

Image source, Getty Images

Broadcaster and trans campaigner India Willoughby says her heart is broken following this morning's Supreme Court ruling.

In an opinion piece for the Metro, external, Willoughby writes that she was "numb in shock" after listening to a judge "effectively strip me of my rights as a woman under the Equality Act".

"Telling me, and others like me, that we are not women is a historical injustice and the celebrations of anti-trans voices today prove to me that I am losing protections", she adds.

Willoughby says the judgement is "horrible and utterly degrading", and has left trans people "unsure of where they stand in law".

"I have always been a woman – and I will always be a woman. I had to fight for it, and nobody will ever take that away from me."

What led to this judgement?published at 17:03 British Summer Time 16 April

17:03 BST 16 April

James Cook
Scotland editor

The case which led to today’s judgement centred on a law passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2018 which aimed to ensure gender balance on public boards.

The judges ruled that trans women could not be defined as women for the purposes of that law.

"The issue here is only whether the appointment of a trans woman who has a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) counts as the appointment of a woman and so counts towards achieving the goal set in the gender representation objective, namely that the board has 50% of non-executive members who are women. In our judgment it does not," they said.

Elsewhere in the 88-page ruling, Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler write: “The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.”

And they say: “Although the word ‘biological’ does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman.

“These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation."

The language is strikingly at odds with the campaigning cry of trans rights activists: "Trans women are women."

That was seized on by the Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, who said: "Saying 'trans women are women' was never true in fact, and isn't true in law either."

There was little sign of groups taking the opposite view outside the hearing, apart from a solitary protester who shouted: "Trans rights are human rights."

Reaction has been pouring in to the UK Supreme Court judgement earlier today. Let's summarise some of what has happened so far:

• In a unanimous ruling, the UK Supreme Court decided "the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex"
• It said a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate in the female gender “does not come within the definition of a ‘woman’ under the Equality Act”
• The move is being welcomed as a “watershed moment” and a “victory for biology, for common sense, for reality” by campaigners who supported the challenge
• But others groups say they feel “devastated” and that the ruling will be “incredibly worrying for the trans community”, urging people not to panic
• The Scottish government, which lost the case, said it “acted in good faith” in its interpretation of the law, and will engage with the UK government “to understand the full implication of this ruling”
• Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge emphasised that transgender people still have protection against discrimination through the Equality Act

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent, at the Supreme Court

It’s important to note that transgender people are still protected by the Equality Act.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment is not affected by this ruling, and Lord Hodge stressed there are other protections against direct and indirect discrimination and harassment.

He was clear that trans people are a “vulnerable and often harassed minority”, who “struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity”.

But the court has held that it would be problematic to effectively divide trans people between two different protected characteristics, depending on whether they have a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

Again, judges stressed that this is particularly the case when service providers can’t ask to see the certificate.

They say the law needs to be “clear and consistent” - and that including those with a GRC in with women would ultimately be “incoherent”.

Susan Egelstaff, a former Olympian and Herald columnist believes this morning's judgement is the right ruling: "I think it's the right way going forward."

She tells Radio Scotland: "In a sporting context, I think it is right that trans women aren't able to compete against biological women in the female category."

"Individuals should be allowed to live how they want, dress how they want, do what they want, but there are some areas I think should be protected for biological females.

"Sport is one of those areas."

Image source, PA Media

The Equality and Human Rights Commission will review and revise guidance on trans rights in response to today's verdict, the Scottish government's finance minister Shona Robison told BBC News.

Robison said the administration would work with the EHRC and the UK government "at pace" on a "new set" of guidance.

She added that the interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act was made "in good faith" by the Scottish government and the EHRC but there was "inconsistency" between the 2010 Act and the 2004 gender recognition bill, and that today's verdict can bring "clarity" to the issue.

Trans rights are still "protected", Ms Robison added, and the EHRC should "engage with everyone" regarding the guidance.

She said: "We need to reassure everyone that in Scotland the rights of everyone are protected, and sometimes that's been a bit lost in this debate."

Image source, PA

Independent MP Rosie Duffield, who has been a high-profile gender-critical campaigner, tells the BBC the supreme court ruling is a "relief because so many women have been fighting against misinterpretation of the law for many years".

Duffield, who resigned from Labour last year, says that "the consequences will be that men cannot opt into women-only spaces just because they say they are now a woman".

"That's great for women, particularly for lesbians who want to meet in a single-sex safe space together and exclude men," she says.

Duffield, who previously said she felt ostracised by Labour colleagues for opposing transgender reforms, says party leader Keir Starmer "hasn't really handled" the issue.

Duffield says she's "relieved to be away from Starmer's leadership" and that he can't "allow women like me to be stopped from standing for positions in the Labour Party".

Image source, UK Parliament

Our colleagues over on BBC Radio 5Live have been getting reaction to today's judgement from two MPs who were elected last year.

Lib Dem MP Anna Sabine has a young trans relative: "if this issue is high in the media, if there's a lot of toxicity, that can directly translate to whether the young person I know is getting abused in the street."

"We all need to think about how we take this forward", says Graham Leadbitter, an MP for the SNP.

"It's particularly important to remember that trans people are amongst the most discriminated against in society and they have some of the highest suicide risk", he added.

We may have used some terminology that you are unfamiliar with during our coverage today - here is a quick rundown on what some of these terms mean and some helpful data to put it into context:

• Gender identity is a term used by some to describe someone's sense of their gender. A transgender person's gender identity is not the same as the sex recorded on their original birth certificate
• A transgender woman is someone registered male at birth, but who identifies as a woman; while a transgender man is someone registered female at birth, but who identifies as a man. Trans is a shorter way of saying transgender
• In the 2021 census, 262,000 people aged 16 and over in England and Wales said their gender identity was different to their birth sex; in Scotland, 19,990 identified as trans or having a trans history in the 2022 census. Some academics raised concern that these numbers could be an overestimate, while an earlier estimate, external said there could be between 200,000 to 500,000 trans people across the UK.
• Non-binary people do not consider themselves to have a solely male or female gender identity.

Duncan Bannatyne, who's well known for starring in the TV show Dragon's Den and owns the gym franchise Bannatyne's, has welcomed the ruling on social media.

He posted on X saying: "I hope all gym owners will join me now in agreeing that single sex spaces for women means biological women."

"No gym should ever allow men into woman’s changing rooms", he added.

The issue of who can use single sex spaces, such as toilets and gym changing rooms, was one of the motivations behind the Supreme Court case - as our BBC Scotland political correspondent explains.

Charity Scottish Trans says it is "really shocked" by the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Manager Vic Valentine says the judgement "reverses twenty years of understanding on how the law recognises trans men and women with Gender Recognition Certificates."

"Trans people need to be able to recover on hospital wards, use toilets, go swimming and access services just like anyone else," they add.

"This judgement seems to suggest that there will be times where trans people can be excluded from both men’s and women’s spaces and services.

"It is hard to understand where we would then be expected to go - or how this decision is compatible with a society that is fair and equal for everybody."

The campaigner says Scottish Trans will continue pushing for trans people to be able to "get on with our lives with privacy, dignity and safety".

Gabriela Pomeroy
Live reporter

The definition of a woman: The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010 is based on the biological sex people are born with. The decision follows a legal case between the Scottish government and a women's rights group, For Women Scotland, about equalities legislation.

Protection for transgender people: The judges emphasised that gender reassignment was still protected in law so it's illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis that they are trans.

So what does it mean for toilets, gym changing rooms and domestic abuse shelters? The suggestion is that women-only spaces will be for biological women only. But the BBC’s social affairs editor says legal and public policy experts will now be trying to work out the implications for day-to-day life.

Trans activists hit out at judgement: "We are devastated, and in tears," says the director of the advocacy group TransActual UK. If trans women can’t be in women-only spaces, “it means we can’t participate in society".

Others celebrate: Harry Potter author JK Rowling says this protects the rights of women and girls across the UK, while Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch says it's a victory: "Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex."

Alison Holt
Social affairs editor

The Supreme Court judgement on gender has brought clarity to a hotly disputed area of the law, but it is less clear how much difference it will make in everyday life.

There is already Equality Act guidance which allows for women only spaces, such as toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards in certain circumstances.

It says this could be for “reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety”.

The Supreme Court justices also emphasised that transgender people have existing protections against discrimination and harassment under the Act. And some who have gender recognition certificates, have another layer of legal protection.

Overall, it is not straightforward in practical terms, which means legal and public policy experts will now be trying to work out the implications.

So, while the judgment brings clarity on the law, the jury is still out on what day-to-day differences it will make.

Out of the legal arena and into the politicalpublished at 14:31 British Summer Time 16 April

14:31 BST 16 April

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political correspondent, at the Supreme Court

The law is drafted by politicians - and it can be changed at the stroke of a pen. The issue may now move out of the legal arena and back into the political one.

There had been some pressure on the UK government to clarify the Equality Act - which is Westminster legislation.

The court has handily done that for them, and UK ministers have welcomed the ruling. There may be more political pressure on the Scottish government, given it has lost this case.

For a long time, ministers have batted away questions about this case - such as, do they really believe in the legal points their lawyers are making? - by saying they can’t comment on live litigation.

They will have to go into a little more detail now, but I imagine this issue is still just about the last thing they want to talk about.

There had been some speculation a ruling like this could raise the prospect of ministers re-launching their attempts at gender reform at Holyrood.

But frankly there is not the political will in the John Swinney administration to ride into battle on this issue, as there was under his predecessor Nicola Sturgeon.

With a Holyrood election looming, there is no prospect of the first minister deciding to wade back into such a contentious debate.

But with For Women Scotland now hoping to use this ruling to hold his feet to fire when it comes to broader government policies and guidance, it is one he will need to address.

If you're just joining us, we're continuing to bring you reaction to the Supreme Court ruling today that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

"We are devastated, and in tears," says Jane Fae, director of the advocacy group TransActual UK - before telling the BBC's World At One programme that the judgement is like a "physical punch".

"What it feels like for pretty much every trans, non-binary person in the UK is that you'd like to exclude us wholesale from UK society. So today we're feeling very alone."

The judgement "opens up a can of worms", and at the moment it's not clear which spaces this applies to, Fae says. If the ruling means "any space that you might associate with women can now be used to exclude trans women... it means we can’t participate in society", she adds.

There are implications for trans men, too, Fae says:

“You are going to see some very moustachioed, balding, whiskered trans men in women’s loos if you go down that road, and it's possible that trans men could be doubly excluded so they are not allowed in women’s spaces as trans men but not allowed in trans places as women - it is very confusing.”

Sheelagh McClaren
BBC Scotland

Image source, Getty Images

In our earlier post, we touched on what today's ruling could mean for transgender people in sport, and now we've heard from Sharron Davies - a former British swimming champion who has previously said trans athletes should not compete in female competitions in order to "protect women's sport".

She says she's "extremely pleased" by today's judgement. "I think it’s just really important that we can define what a woman is," Davies tells me.

Today's ruling did not concern sports directly, but Davies says she hopes organisations including the Football Association and the English Cricket Board will now take notice and "stop discriminating against women and girls".

"It doesn’t mean to say that we can’t respect people across the whole of society, however they wish to present themselves", she says. "My position was always one that, biologically, women are very different from men", Davies goes on, saying it's time for sports to "protect every female athlete".

For context: In recent years, many sports have tightened up rules around transgender athletes at the elite level. Athletics, cycling and aquatics, for example, have banned transgender women from taking part in women’s events.

Other sports have instead put in place eligibility criteria. Earlier this month the English Football Association introduced stricter rules, but still allowed transgender women to continue to compete in the women’s game as long as their testosterone was kept below a certain level.

In 2022, British Triathlon became the first British sporting body to establish an open category in which transgender athletes can compete.