The UK’s Supreme Court has ruled that “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to sex, not self-ID or paperwork (gender-recognition certificates). This agreed with our legal interpretation. We have published new guidance and are in the process of updating our publications to reflect the judgment. We are also working to provide answers to the questions we're hearing from supporters and the media. We will publish these as soon as possible.

Sign up
Donate

Send our briefing to organisations you know

Share our summary of the Supreme Court judgment and practical advice for organisations to think about when reviewing their policies and practices in light of this clarification of the law.

Share our briefing on the Supreme Court judgment

With the judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers just out, now is a good time to write to the largest organisations with which you have a connection, whether as an employee or member, on the board or regulated by them, or as a service user or customer, to share our briefing.

Write to the chief executive, chief people officer or general counsel and attach our briefing.

You can adapt this template letter:

Dear [xxxx]

Introduce yourself: I am writing to you as a… / As you know I am a….

I am sure you have heard about the recent Supreme Court judgment clarifying that the meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act relates to biological sex, and not to gender identity or having a gender-recognition certificate (GRC). This judgment protects women’s rights, an issue of particular concern to me.

The judgment makes the law much easier to understand and apply in order to protect everyone’s rights. But it is disappointing to those who have been advocating for an approach based on gender identity. That approach has been found to be wrong in law. Organisational policies that are not based on the Equality Act’s definition of sex as clarified by the Supreme Court are likely to result in unlawful conduct.

I am attaching a briefing from Sex Matters, a human-rights charity that intervened in the case on the winning side, and which was thanked by the Supreme Court for its cogent analysis. The court described this analysis as giving “focus and structure to the argument that ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ should be given a biological meaning”. You can therefore trust that the briefing (which you can also read online at sex-matters.org/supreme-court-advice) and Sex Matters’ recommendations are legally accurate. I hope you find them useful. 

I recognise that it will take some time for [xxxx] to develop a comprehensive response to the judgment. But I hope you can immediately reassure me and others that [xxx]:

1. accepts the Supreme Court judgement and is fully committed to promoting equality, inclusivity, and fairness for all individuals, in line with the Equality Act 2010

2. recognises the fundamental importance of protecting women and men against sex discrimination, and following the law in relation to spaces and services

3. is committed to upholding the protections against discrimination and harassment of transgender people on the basis of gender reassignment in the Equality Act, which do not involve treating people as having changed sex

4. respects freedom of belief and is committed to avoiding belief discrimination (note this does not mean that statements by employees advocating non-compliance with the Equality Act will be tolerated)

5. will urgently review existing policies and practices to ensure that they are compliant with the law, and share the plan and results of this process transparently. 

I would like to follow up by sending you a note of particular issues that I am aware of in relation to your policies. If there is a process or person to best direct this to, please let me know. You can also get in touch with Sex Matters at [email protected] to ask questions or discuss these recommendations. 

Thank you. 

If you have written to an organisation you can tell us about it by emailing [email protected].