When Recognition Recedes: A Human Rights Lens on the UK Supreme Court’s Gender Ruling

On April 16, 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a judgment that has sent ripples across legal, political, and human rights communities: in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, the Court ruled that the term “woman” under the Equality Act 2010 refers exclusively to biological sex, not to gender identity, even in the case of individuals who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

In a unanimous decision, the Court clarified that while transgender people are protected under the characteristic of "gender reassignment," those protections do not extend to spaces and rights reserved on the basis of sex. In effect, a trans woman, even one who has undergone legal gender recognition, cannot be considered a woman under the Equality Act. This decision not only redefines key legal interpretations in the UK but also raises profound concerns when viewed through the lens of human rights.

Article 8: The Right to Private and Family Life

At the heart of this ruling is a question of identity. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees every individual the right to respect for private and family life. This includes autonomy over personal identity and self-expression, core elements of the transgender experience.

By drawing a hard line between legal sex and gender identity, the Court’s decision arguably undermines this right. It signals that even after undergoing a state-sanctioned legal process to affirm their gender, trans people may still find themselves excluded from the very legal protections meant to uphold their dignity.

Article 14: Protection from Discrimination

When a law differentiates access to rights or protections based on a person's characteristics, it risks running afoul of Article 14 of the Convention, which prohibits discrimination. By affirming that certain spaces or services must exclude trans women on the basis of biological sex, the ruling risks creating a two-tiered system of rights: one for cisgender people, and another, less secure for transgender people.

It is not difficult to imagine how this ruling could lead to increased exclusion, stigma, and harm. Rather than protecting the rights of one group, it effectively erodes the protections of another, one that is already at greater risk of marginalisation, violence, and poor mental health outcomes.

A Door to Strasbourg?

While the UK is no longer part of the European Union, it remains a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and is bound by rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. For those dismayed by the Supreme Court's decision, the ECtHR could offer a path forward.

A particularly relevant precedent is the landmark case of Goodwin v. United Kingdom (2002). In this case, the ECtHR held that the UK had violated the rights of Christine Goodwin, a transgender woman, by failing to legally recognise her gender identity. The Court found breaches of Article 8 (the right to private and family life) and Article 12 (the right to marry), stressing that a lack of legal recognition inflicted real harm and undermined human dignity.

This case was pivotal in shaping trans rights in the UK and led directly to the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which allows trans people to acquire a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) and be legally recognised in their affirmed gender. The principle established in Goodwin is that legal recognition must be meaningful, practical, and not merely symbolic.

That principle is now in tension with the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling. While the UK still issues GRCs, this ruling limits their real-world impact by excluding GRC holders from protections and rights under the Equality Act that are reserved for biological women. In doing so, it arguably undermines the very purpose of gender recognition—creating a legal identity that carries full rights and protections.

If a case were brought to Strasbourg today, claimants could argue that the UK's interpretation:

• Fails to uphold the dignity and autonomy protected by Article 8, and

• Introduces a form of indirect discrimination under Article 14, by granting recognition in name but withholding its substance in law.

While Goodwin dealt with marriage and employment discrimination, its core logic, the importance of legal and social recognition of gender identity, remains highly relevant. Future cases may well test how that logic extends to modern questions of sex-based protections, equality law, and access to services.

A Wider Reckoning

This decision comes at a time of heightened tension and polarisation around gender identity in the UK. It reflects not just a legal judgment, but a deeper struggle over who gets to belong, who is recognised, and who is not.

Human rights law is not static. It evolves in conversation with the changing fabric of society. But when the highest court in the land reaffirms biological essentialism in ways that deny full recognition to transgender individuals, it invites scrutiny, not just legal, but moral.

We are reminded, once again, that rights are not merely about protections on paper. They are about the ability to live with dignity, to move through the world without fear, and to have one's identity respected. This ruling may have clarified one law, but it has unsettled a much deeper sense of justice.

The question now is: what comes next?