(CTN News) – The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled on Wednesday that the equality act defines a woman as someone who was born biologically female. The decision was made in conformity with constitutional principles.

In an ensuing statement, Justice Patrick Hodge stated that five members of the Supreme Court had unanimously agreed that “the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”

The decision was made in conformity with the Constitution.

According to the Supreme Court, a transgender person who obtains a certificate recognizing them as female should not be regarded as a woman in order to achieve equality. This is because the document proves they are female.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court made it very clear that its decision “does not remove protection from trans people,” emphasizing that trans people are “protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.”

One can trace an argument back to a piece of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2018. This statute requires that boards of Scottish public entities have a minimum of 50% female representation. This legislation has been the source of controversy. To be more clear, the statute identified transgender women as female.

For Women Scotland (FWS), a women’s rights organization, has challenged the Act, claiming that it exceeded parliament’s authority to redefine the term “woman.”

A challenge was lodged against the measure. A person who got a gender recognition certificate, on the other hand, was already considered to have met the criteria for being classified as a woman, according to new guidelines provided by the Scottish authorities.

The FWS made an effort to reverse that, and it was successful.

According to the group, the outcome of the action might have ramifications for sex-based rights in Scotland, England, and Wales, as well as single-sex facilities including bathrooms, hospital wards, and jail cells.

Therefore, the Supreme Court lawsuit’s outcome may affect these facilities.

“Not tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise of fifty percent men and fifty percent men with certificates, and still lawfully meet the targets for female representation,” Trina Budge, the organization’s executive director, previously stated.

Following the lawsuit’s dismissal by a Supreme Court in 2022, the group was granted permission to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court the previous year.

Aidan O’Neill, a lawyer representing FWS, told the Supreme Court judges, who are made up of three men and two women, that the term “sex” should be understood to refer to biological sex and used “in ordinary, everyday language.” O’Neill told the judges about this information.

“Our position is that your sex, whether you are a man, a woman, a girl, or a boy, is determined by your body from conception in utero, even before birth,” said the researcher. To put it another way, it is an irreversible biological condition that expresses an individual’s physiological reality.

According to reports, author J.K. Rowling, a supporter of the women’s rights movement, donated tens of thousands of pounds to the cause through cash contributions.

Rowling supported the campaign. She has been an outspoken supporter of transgender women’s rights as the author of the “Harry Potter” series. She has stated that these rights should not be extended at the expense of individuals who are biologically feminine.

Some opponents of the plan contended that excluding transgender people from sex discrimination protections would violate human rights legislation. Amnesty International was one of the organizations that presented this viewpoint.

In a brief given to the court, Amnesty International raised worry about the erosion of transgender people’s rights in the United Kingdom and other countries.

According to the organization that supports for transgender individuals, “a blanket policy of barring trans women from single-sex services is not a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim,”

SOURCE: NPR