The UK Supreme Court has just delivered a landmark ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, affirming that the term “woman” in the UK’s Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not gender identity. This decision clarifies that single-sex spaces and services—such as crisis shelters, hospital wards, and sports—can lawfully exclude biological males to protect the safety, dignity, and privacy of biological women.
The judgment reinforces the principle that sex-based protections and rights are distinct from gender identity protections. As Deputy President Lord Hodge stated, the ruling ensures that “sex is binary” and that women’s legal protections are not “overwritten by gender ideology.”
Why this matters for Australia
Australia faces legal ambiguities — similar to those now addressed by the UK — as a result of the 2013 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA), which replaced biological definitions of “woman” and “man” with “gender identity.” These changes have:
- Eroded clarity on sex-based protections, enabling self-identification laws in states/territories.
- Compromised women’s access to female-only spaces (e.g., shelters, change rooms).
- Fueled institutional conflicts, such as public bodies prioritising gender-neutral policies to meet external benchmarks such as the Australian Workplace Equality Index (AWEI).
The UK ruling underscores the urgency of restoring biological definitions in Australian law. As seen in cases like Tickle v Giggle (2024), where a lengthy legal dispute has arisen when a digital platform designed for female users has been challenged on the grounds of exclusion of gender identity.
Key implications for Australia
- Legal precedent for clarity
The UK judgment highlights the importance of clear statutory language. AAWAA has long called for amendments to the SDA to reinstate biological definitions, ensuring women’s rights are not subordinated to gender identity. - Protecting female-only spaces
The ruling validates AAWAA’s advocacy for female-only spaces under Sections 7D (“special measures”) and 32 (charities) of the SDA. As the UK court noted, biological distinctions are critical in contexts like healthcare, sport, and crisis support. - Alignment with international frameworks
Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) require robust sex-based protections. The UK decision aligns with CEDAW’s mandate, contrasting with Australia’s current trend of prioritising gender identity over sex. - Addressing institutional bias
The judgment indirectly critiques policies such as AWEI compliance, which have led public institutions (e.g., the Department of Health) to adopt gender-neutral language and facilities at the expense of women’s needs. AAWAA’s blog post on institutional integrity details these conflicts.
The path forward
The UK ruling offers a blueprint for Australian reform. AAWAA urges Australian law- and policy-makers to:
- Restore biological definitions of “woman” and “man” in the SDA.
- Clarify exemptions for female-only spaces and services.
- Review institutional participation in external advocacy benchmarks that compromise impartial governance.
As Susan Smith of For Women Scotland declared, this decision ensures “women can feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women.” Australia must follow suit to protect the hard-won rights of women and girls.
Read more about the global implications of the ruling.
