A lawyer acting for a women’s rights campaign group has called on the UK Supreme Court to find sex is an “immutable biological state”.
Aidan O’Neill KC put forward the argument as he represented For Women Scotland (FWS) in its latest legal challenge against the Scottish Government over whether trans women can be regarded as female for the purposes of the 2010 Equality Act.
He told the court at the appeal hearing on Tuesday: “Our submission is that the court should find in favour of (For Women Scotland)… that in the Equality Act, sex just means sex, as that word and the words woman and man are understood and used in ordinary, everyday language, used every day in everyday situations by ordinary people.”
He said the Scottish ministers’ position that sex, man and woman in the Equality Act refer to “certificated sex” – as the sex on a person’s birth certificate whether or not amended by a gender recognition certificate (GRC) – is “just wrong and should be rejected by the court”.
Mr O’Neill called for the court to take account of “the facts of biological reality rather than the fantasies of legal fiction”, and to uphold the appeal.
He added: “Our position is your sex, whether you are a man or a woman or a girl or a boy is determined from conception in utero, even before one’s birth, by one’s body.
“It is an expression of one’s bodily reality. It is an immutable biological state.”
The action is the latest in a series of challenges brought by the campaign group FWS over the definition of “woman” in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards.
The case centres on whether or not somebody with a GRC recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Equality Act.
The latest action is seeking to overturn a decision by the Scottish courts in 2023 which found that treating someone with a GRC as a woman under the Equality Act was lawful.
The Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 is a piece of legislation intended to increase the proportion of women on public boards in Scotland.
In 2022, FWS successfully challenged the original act over its inclusion of trans women in its definition of women.
The Court of Session ruled that changing the definition of a woman in the act was unlawful, as it dealt with matters falling outside the Scottish Parliament’s legal competence.
Following the challenge, the Scottish Government dropped the definition from the act and issued revised statutory guidance – essentially, advice on how to comply with the law.
This stated that under the 2018 Act, the definition of a woman was the same as that set out in the Equality Act 2010, and also that a person with a GRC recognising their gender as female had the sex of a woman.
FWS challenged this revised guidance on the grounds sex under the Equality Act referred to its biological meaning and said the Government was overstepping its powers by effectively redefining the meaning of “woman”.
However, their challenge was twice rejected by the Court of Session, which did grant FWS permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
Mr O’Neill told the Supreme Court that FWS’s position is “not transphobic” and would be “preserving” rights rather than “closing down” rights.
He argued: “It’s simple and straightforward if you just stick to men being men, women being women and sex being sex.”
He said this provided a consistent reading across the Act and means a natal man who is now a trans woman with a GRC would not be defined as a woman under the Act.
Mr O’Neill said other interpretations mean “natal men gaining women’s rights via GRC and the other one involves natal women losing women’s rights as a result of GRC”.
He told the court Parliament could not have intended for the application of the Equality Act to result in “absurd or nonsensical outcomes”.
He argued the Scottish ministers’ approach would lead to “absurd and unjust consequences”.
In the Scottish ministers’ written submissions, they argued in this case “the term ‘woman’ where used in the 2018 Act includes a person issued with a full GRC in the acquired gender of female – and excludes
a person issued with a full GRC in the acquired gender of male”.
They argue their statutory guidance is lawful and the appeal should be refused.
The appeal before Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Rose and Lady Simler continues.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article