Latest news with #GenderRecognitionAct
Scotsman
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Nicola Sturgeon: Supreme Court judgment on definition of woman 'massively overinterpreted'
Nicola Sturgeon | John Devlin Nicola Sturgeon has warned that politicians should update the law if the Supreme Court judgment harms the lives of transgender people. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Nicola Sturgeon has warned the Supreme Court judgment defining a woman in the Equality Act has been 'massively overinterpreted" as she repeated her calls for Keir Starmer's government to amend the law if the fallout impacts on the lives of trans people. The former first minister has revealed that she has had more "misogynistic abuse" over the issue of gender recognition than any other during her career. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon | John Devlin Unsurprisingly, Ms Sturgeon has reiterated that she will always be an "ally of the trans community". Ms Sturgeon, speaking in events at the How the Light Gets In festival in Hay-on Wye in Powys, Wales, on Saturday, stressed that the Supreme Court judgment last month had said "what the law is, there is no gainsaying that". The court ruled that the definition of a woman in the Equality Act refers to a biological woman. Trans women can legally become a woman through the Gender Recognition Act. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Echoing her comments given at Holyrood earlier this month, Ms Sturgeon stressed that it was up to politicians to "decide what the law should be or has to be". Watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), has faced accusations of a kneejerk response to the ruling after issuing interim guidance which recommends transgender people should not be allowed to use toilets of the gender they live as, and that in some cases they also cannot use toilets of their birth sex. Ms Sturgeon pointed to comments last week from Baroness Hale of Richmond, the first female president of the Supreme Court, who said that the judgment had been "misinterpreted". Susan Smith, left, and Marion Calder, directors of For Women Scotland, cheer as they leave the Supreme Court in London following the landmark ruling against the Scottish Government Lady Hale said that there was "nothing in that judgment that says that you can't have gender-neutral loos". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Sturgeon said: "That judgment, I think, has been massively overinterpreted in terms of some of the immediate reactions to it. "But if it is the case that the judgment means we have to move to a situation where trans lives are almost impossible to live then I'm sorry but the law has to change because that is not an acceptable way to be." Ms Sturgeon said that despite the abuse she had received over her support for the trans community, she would "always" be its ally "no matter how difficult that might be". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She added: "Many of those who are on the other side [of the issue] say it is all about protecting women," she told the festival. "Isn't it ironic that I have probably had more misogynistic abuse as a result of this issue than on any other issue in my entire political career. Go figure." According to The Sunday Times, Ms Sturgeon's comments have been criticised by Susan Smith of For Women Scotland, the organisation that won the Supreme Court appeal against the Scottish Government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She said: "It would be quite ironic, although not unexpected, if the first female first minister was resolutely sticking to the notion that biological sex is some nebulous concept. "There has indeed been a great deal of misrepresentation of the Supreme Court ruling but the most egregious has come from trans activists who have spun the most outrageous interpretations. "Baroness Hale was correct in saying that the ruling does not outlaw gender-neutral toilets but any organisation which only provides such facilities should be mindful that this may result in discrimination against other protected characteristics, in addition to sex.
Irish Independent
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
‘It's unfair on me to have to tell my employer my biological sex is female', says Luke, 27
Luke O'Reilly Kane, who was born a woman, says lack of clarity and foresight around the Gender Recognition Act means true equality is still a long way off Luke O'Reilly Kane was born a woman, but his views now go against the predominant transgender ideology. Now 27, he was aged 18 in 2016 and among the first people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate under the 2015 Gender Recognition Act, which marks 10 years in existence next month. Under the act, he could legally change his gender from female to male, and he carries a certificate to this effect.
The National
08-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
Supreme Court's sex ruling faces legal tests – will they succeed?
Starmer's view was echoed by Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, who described the ruling as 'crystal clear' and stressed the need for 'services that are safe and appropriate and respect [everyone's] privacy and dignity'. But what was billed as legal clarity has created 'greater confusion as to what this now means in practice,' Dr Alexander Maine of City Law School, University of London, told the Sunday National. For example, guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) states that trans men must use women's toilets – from which they could be excluded for looking too much like a man. But they also cannot be left with nowhere to go. The question of which toilets trans people can use has become a battleground (Image: Pixabay) Dr Damian Gonzalez-Salzberg, an associate professor at the University of Birmingham Law School, said the guidance 'seems to go beyond what the Supreme Court has said, or at least it might not have taken the whole picture into consideration'. The guidance now faces multiple legal challenges, with allegations that it misreads the ruling, exceeds the law, and violates human rights. Rather than ending the debate on trans rights and single-sex spaces, it has triggered three court cases – pushing the issue back into litigation and the media spotlight. Challenge one: Good Law Project and human rights. THE first, a wide-reaching legal challenge, is being brought by the Good Law Project. The group has taken legal action against both the EHRC and Phillipson, the Equalities Minister, over allegations that the guidance on the Supreme Court case breaches the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Dr Maine explained that the core argument looked back to a crucial case for gender law in the UK: Goodwin 2002. This held that the 'UK was in breach of its obligations to uphold trans people's human rights, specifically the right to marry under Article 12 [of the ECHR], and the right to a private and family life,' he said. The case led directly to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Dr Maine said that, given the legalisation of gay marriage across the UK since 2002, the argument under Article 12 would no longer hold weight – but the right to privacy under Article 8 could prove crucial. READ MORE: Kelly Given: Defining women by our biology alone is chilling 'It may be that because trans people will effectively be outed if they have to use single-sex spaces that they do not appear to adhere to – for instance, a trans woman using a male space – that might go against their right to privacy,' Dr Maine said. Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said Good Law Project's argument was 'very careful' and relied on European jurisprudence. 'They suggest that it was the EHRC that misunderstood the court,' he explained. 'So that's the first ground that they're proposing – your guidance is or will be in breach of human rights if implemented because you're misreading what the law is. 'Then the second argument is, OK, if you are reading this correctly, it's still a breach of human rights, actually. They focus on what the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has been regarding trans rights. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg'This is a very, very lengthy jurisprudence that goes from the early 1980s … That jurisprudence has got to a point which is very clear that trans people have the right to live their lives in their acquired gender, which this guidance does not seem to allow you to do when, well, you don't even know where you can pee.' Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg further argued that there could be a case under Article 14 of the ECHR, which prohibits discrimination 'on any ground'. He said: 'If you're taking certain measures, you are affecting this group quite heavily, and that's one of the problems with the EHRC guidance. They said, OK, if you have mixed toilets, this might be indirect discrimination against women because women might be put in a disadvantaged situation by this general policy. 'They're not saying the same regarding trans people, and that is worrying. If you have a policy that trans people cannot use their gender's toilets, well, this will put them in a disadvantaged situation.' He added that Article 8 and Article 14 therefore represented 'two strong arguments to be made as to human rights of trans people'. Challenge two: Liberty and the consultation period. NINE days after the Supreme Court's ruling on sex, the EHRC issued its 'interim guidance' telling firms and public bodies how it should be interpreted. At the same time, it opened a two-week consultation period to advise on permanent guidance which is due to follow later this year. After concerns were raised, the EHRC extended this to a six-week consultation. However, human rights group Liberty launched a legal action calling this 'wholly insufficient'. Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg pointed to case law from the High Court, which in January ruled that an eight-week consultation period for £3 billion cuts to incapacity benefits was too short for such major changes. The door to the UK Supreme Court in London (Image: Archive)The academic further said that the EHRC was in danger of making the same mistake as the Supreme Court and excluding the voices of those most impacted – trans people. 'If you only get six weeks, you're really restricting the possibility of people intervening," Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said. "Especially when you consider the claims about how trans people were not really listened to in the Supreme Court's case. For the EHRC now to repeat this sort of mistake seems quite serious.' However, on Friday the High Court dismissed Liberty's claim, with Mr Justice Swift saying: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important. 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair." Challenge three: The European Court of Human Rights. AS things stand, there is less information available about the third legal challenge against the UK's new rules on sex and gender. However, Dr Victoria McCloud, who was the first openly trans judge in the UK before stepping down in 2024, has made clear her intention to challenge the Supreme Court's decision at the European Court of Human Rights. In the wake of the ruling in April, Dr McCloud told the BBC that she felt it breached her human rights and left her with the legal "nonsense" of being "two sexes at once". Inset: Trans judge Dr Victoria McCloud (Image: NQ) Dr McCloud also raised concerns that trans people had not been heard during the Supreme Court's deliberations on the biological sex ruling. "Trans people were wholly excluded from this court case," she told the BBC. "I applied to be heard. Two of us did. We were refused.' Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said the ruling would 'have a very strong detrimental impact on trans people'. 'It's already having that and that is clearly problematic, and in many ways also because trans people were in a very definitive way excluded from properly being heard in the ruling, which makes the situation even, even worse.' There is a clear pattern behind the three legal cases – trans people believe they were not listened to in a ruling which directly impacted their lives. Instead, they will make themselves heard in court.
The Herald Scotland
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Harvie: Holyrood trans toilet ban may breach human rights
READ MORE: Has Holyrood misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling on sex? MSPs express 'deep concern' over trans toilet ruling Holyrood adds gender-neutral toilets after sex ruling Mr Harvie is one of 17 MSPs to have signed an open letter criticising the recent change in policy. The letter—also signed by 30 staff members, most of whom work for MSPs—was organised by the Good Law Project. It described the new rules as 'transphobic', warning their implementation would be 'deeply invasive' and risk 'humiliation, harassment or worse'. During an urgent question at Holyrood, Mr Harvie cited former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who has said that organisations are permitted—but not obliged—to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces. Mr Harvie told MSPs: 'In making the decision to take this exclusive, exclusionary approach, I am concerned that the SPCB is risking taking us back to the breach of human rights which existed prior to the creation of the Gender Recognition Act in 2004 and a position that just as little as 10 years ago was the obsession of the extremist fringe of the US Republican Party. "It is not enough to use words like inclusive experience and welcoming environment." He asked whether the corporate body recognised the impact the changes had already had on 'those who are being told that they are no longer permitted to use basic facilities like toilets on the same basis as everyone else, and who now feel unwelcome and demeaned in their own workplace'. Holyrood adopted the policy following the Supreme Court ruling (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) Responding on behalf of the SPCB, SNP MSP Christine Grahame said it was 'rather unfortunate' that Mr Harvie had used such language, and insisted the corporate body had acted 'in a tolerant and sensitive manner, in a very delicate and balanced manner'. 'The Scottish Parliament has always sought to reflect the founding principles and to be an open, accessible institution to promote participation and equal opportunities,' she said. 'We remain deeply committed to these principles and to provide—I know you do not like this word—an inclusive environment where all, including those in the trans and non-binary community, feel supported and welcome to work and visit.' The changes, which came into effect earlier this month, follow the Supreme Court ruling that 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. An interim update from the Equality and Human Rights Commission advised that in most workplaces and public-facing services, trans women should not be permitted to use female-only facilities, and vice versa. Under the new policy, all toilets and changing rooms marked 'male' or 'female' at Holyrood are now designated on the basis of biological sex. The Parliament has increased the number of gender-neutral facilities by redesignating three public toilets and two private facilities used by MSPs and staff. Ms Grahame said Parliament would not 'police' toilet use, but a complaints process was available. 'We are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities,' she said. 'This is not going to be policed by the corporate body.' Several MSPs, including the SNP's Emma Roddick, questioned whether the decision had been made prematurely and whether it risked creating a hostile working environment. Ms Roddick asked: 'Does [the SPCB] recognise that this unexpected and surprising policy change has put [trans and non-binary staff] in an impossible situation and potentially a hostile working environment?' Ms Grahame replied: 'I certainly hope and expect that this will not put anyone in this Parliament in a hostile environment. That is not the culture within this building.' READ MORE Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton asked that 'no parliamentary staff member will be put in the position of having to challenge a toilet user in the future'. Green MSP Lorna Slater asked how trans people would be expected to 'prove' their right to use a facility. 'Members in this chamber may be aware of the lively internet conspiracy that I myself am a trans woman,' she said. 'If a complaint is made about me using a woman's toilet, how does the SPCB expect me to demonstrate or prove my ability to use this toilet? Should I bring my birth certificate? Should I subject myself to a medical examination?' Ms Grahame replied: 'No one is asking anyone for any proof of anything, and I fully intend to use the gender neutral toilets myself.' Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said the discussion was a 'farcical waste of time'. 'The people of Scotland expect politicians to focus on what matters—rising household bills, their children's education, getting a GP appointment, fixing the roads, keeping communities safe—yet the priority for out-of-touch SNP, Labour, LibDem and Green MSPs is an urgent debate about the Holyrood toilets.' His colleague Craig Hoy questioned whether the decision had been unanimous, which would suggest Green MSP Maggie Chapman had 'both supported these measures and also wrote a letter in opposition to them'. Ms Grahame responded: 'Decisions by the corporate body do not ever go to a vote—they are made by consent.' A full consultation by the SPCB is expected later this year, once a revised statutory code from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been finalised and approved by ministers.
The Herald Scotland
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Parliament defends 'inclusive' trans toilet ban after MSPs and staff complain
READ MORE: Has Holyrood misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling on sex? MSPs express 'deep concern' over trans toilet ruling Holyrood adds gender-neutral toilets after sex ruling Mr Harvie is one of 17 MSPs to have signed an open letter criticising the recent change in policy. The letter—also signed by 30 staff members, most of whom work for MSPs—was organised by the Good Law Project. It described the new rules as 'transphobic', warning their implementation would be 'deeply invasive' and risk 'humiliation, harassment or worse'. During an urgent question at Holyrood, Mr Harvie cited former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who has said that organisations are permitted—but not obliged—to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces. Mr Harvie told MSPs: 'In making the decision to take this exclusive, exclusionary approach, I am concerned that the SPCB is risking taking us back to the breach of human rights which existed prior to the creation of the Gender Recognition Act in 2004 and a position that just as little as 10 years ago was the obsession of the extremist fringe of the US Republican Party. "It is not enough to use words like inclusive experience and welcoming environment." He asked whether the corporate body recognised the impact the changes had already had on 'those who are being told that they are no longer permitted to use basic facilities like toilets on the same basis as everyone else, and who now feel unwelcome and demeaned in their own workplace'. Holyrood adopted the policy following the Supreme Court ruling (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) Responding on behalf of the SPCB, SNP MSP Christine Grahame said it was 'rather unfortunate' that Mr Harvie had used such language, and insisted the corporate body had acted 'in a tolerant and sensitive manner, in a very delicate and balanced manner'. 'The Scottish Parliament has always sought to reflect the founding principles and to be an open, accessible institution to promote participation and equal opportunities,' she said. 'We remain deeply committed to these principles and to provide—I know you do not like this word—an inclusive environment where all, including those in the trans and non-binary community, feel supported and welcome to work and visit.' The changes, which came into effect earlier this month, follow the Supreme Court ruling that 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. An interim update from the Equality and Human Rights Commission advised that in most workplaces and public-facing services, trans women should not be permitted to use female-only facilities, and vice versa. Under the new policy, all toilets and changing rooms marked 'male' or 'female' at Holyrood are now designated on the basis of biological sex. The Parliament has increased the number of gender-neutral facilities by redesignating three public toilets and two private facilities used by MSPs and staff. Ms Grahame said Parliament would not 'police' toilet use, but a complaints process was available. 'We are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities,' she said. 'This is not going to be policed by the corporate body.' Several MSPs, including the SNP's Emma Roddick, questioned whether the decision had been made prematurely and whether it risked creating a hostile working environment. Ms Roddick asked: 'Does [the SPCB] recognise that this unexpected and surprising policy change has put [trans and non-binary staff] in an impossible situation and potentially a hostile working environment?' Ms Grahame replied: 'I certainly hope and expect that this will not put anyone in this Parliament in a hostile environment. That is not the culture within this building.' READ MORE Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton asked that 'no parliamentary staff member will be put in the position of having to challenge a toilet user in the future'. Green MSP Lorna Slater asked how trans people would be expected to 'prove' their right to use a facility. 'Members in this chamber may be aware of the lively internet conspiracy that I myself am a trans woman,' she said. 'If a complaint is made about me using a woman's toilet, how does the SPCB expect me to demonstrate or prove my ability to use this toilet? Should I bring my birth certificate? Should I subject myself to a medical examination?' Ms Grahame replied: 'No one is asking anyone for any proof of anything, and I fully intend to use the gender neutral toilets myself.' Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said the discussion was a 'farcical waste of time'. 'The people of Scotland expect politicians to focus on what matters—rising household bills, their children's education, getting a GP appointment, fixing the roads, keeping communities safe—yet the priority for out-of-touch SNP, Labour, LibDem and Green MSPs is an urgent debate about the Holyrood toilets.' His colleague Craig Hoy questioned whether the decision had been unanimous, which would suggest Green MSP Maggie Chapman had 'both supported these measures and also wrote a letter in opposition to them'. Ms Grahame responded: 'Decisions by the corporate body do not ever go to a vote—they are made by consent.' A full consultation by the SPCB is expected later this year, once a revised statutory code from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been finalised and approved by ministers.
