Latest news with #GenderRecognitionCertificate
The Herald Scotland
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Sex Matters warns Scottish Government over court ruling
In April, the UK's highest court ruled unanimously that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not alter a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. READ MORE The judgment clarified that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. While First Minister John Swinney welcomed the 'clarity' provided by the judgment, the Scottish Government has said it is still waiting for further instruction from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) before it issues guidance of its own to Scotland's public bodies. The watchdog is due to publish an updated statutory Code of Practice — effectively an authoritative instruction manual on applying the Equality Act — later this year. However, the EHRC has repeatedly said that as the ruling applies now, 'those with duties under the Equality Act 2010 should be following the law and looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices.' In the letter to the Government, Sex Matters says the ruling must be implemented 'without delay'. It also calls for the immediate withdrawal of the Government's guidance document Supporting transgender pupils in schools, describing it as 'wrong'. The charity's chief executive, Maya Forstater, told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme: 'The Supreme Court has made the law absolutely clear: men are male and women are female, and both have a right to dignity and privacy in things like toilets and changing rooms, as well as specialist services like women's refuges. 'The Scottish Government is dragging its feet — it has not changed its policies.' Ms Forstater said the ruling had yet to be applied in schools or in the Government's own facilities. She added: 'All we are asking them to do is put a simple statement on their website which says that their facilities are separated by sex, and they also provide unisex facilities so everyone is included.' READ MORE A spokesperson for the Scottish Government told The Times: 'The Scottish Government has been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment. 'We are reviewing policies, guidance and legislation potentially impacted by the judgment. 'This will prepare us to take all necessary steps when the regulator of the Equality Act 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, publishes its revised statutory code of practice and associated guidance for services, public functions and associations. The EHRC is currently consulting on this revised code of practice. 'We will respond to any letter received in due course.' Over the weekend, speaking at a fringe event at the Scottish Conservative conference, For Women Scotland's Susan Smith said people needed to challenge organisations failing to implement the law. 'We are possibly going to have to go back to court in order to get some of the Government policies — especially policies in prison — changed. There are still at least four male murderers in the women's prison estate in Scotland, and that is a shocking fact. 'But we have [the Supreme Court judgment] now, and this is a fantastic basis to go forward.' Speaking to journalists later, she said: 'We have spoken to the Scottish Government and asked them to withdraw some of this guidance — just even say it is under review. They do not have to reissue anything at this point, but because it is clearly unlawful, we really do need some action. 'They are telling us they have to wait for the EHRC revised guidance. We do not believe this is true.'
Irish Independent
5 days ago
- 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 Herald Scotland
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Scottish Government ordered to pay For Women Scotland costs
For Women Scotland (FWS) has previously said it expects to recoup about £250,000 of £417,000 it spent on the case in costs. READ MORE Scottish Government spent £374k on gender court battle Parliament defends 'inclusive' trans toilet ban after MSPs and staff complain 'Not divisive': Tory candidate in Hamilton by-election defends Orange Order ties In a unanimous decision last month, the Supreme Court ruled that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. The justices concluded that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. The decision marked the culmination of a legal dispute that began in 2017, when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, aimed at boosting female representation. The law was amended to include trans women — including those without a GRC — as 'women'. FWS challenged this, arguing that the definition conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women. After an initial defeat, the group won on appeal in 2022, with judges ruling that biological sex could not be redefined. The Scottish Government then revised its guidance to state that GRC holders change their legal sex. Read the exclusive follow up to this story from Andrew Learmonth: FWS launched a second legal challenge, maintaining that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. Although the Outer House and the Inner House ruled in favour of Scottish Ministers, the Supreme Court ultimately overturned those judgments. The court order explicitly states that 'a person whose acquired gender is the female gender by virtue of a Gender Recognition Certificate issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not come within the definition of 'woman' for the purposes of sections 11 and 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010'. It adds the same clarification regarding trans men, before specifying that 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 'refers only to biological women'. The order further states that the Scottish Government is 'liable for the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court, to include the costs of one leading and one junior counsel, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed'. It is also responsible for the expenses of FWS. A previous freedom of information request by the Conservative Party revealed that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated with the judicial review brought by FWS. Writing on X, former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC said the order 'underlines clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success'.
Scottish Sun
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Scottish Sun
Scottish Government ordered to pay costs after landmark gender ruling over definition of ‘woman'
It comes after a three-year battle from feminist campaigners FOOT THE BILL Scottish Government ordered to pay costs after landmark gender ruling over definition of 'woman' THE Scottish Government has been ordered to cough up costs to feminist campaigners after losing a high-profile legal fight over the definition of a woman. Taxpayers are set to foot the bill, with For Women Scotland (FWS) expecting to recover around £250,000 of the £417,000 spent on the gruelling three-year court battle. Advertisement 4 Marion Calder, right, and Susan Smith, left, from For Women Scotland, celebrate outside after the U.K. Supreme Court Credit: AP 4 A court order has ruled the Scottish Government must pay FWS's costs and expenses Credit: Rex 4 The decision has sparked outrage amongst transgender communities Credit: Lesley Martin 2025 A court order issued on Tuesday confirmed the payout, which covers expenses from both the Court of Session and the UK Supreme Court. Last month, FWS emerged victorious when five Supreme Court judges unanimously ruled that the Equality Act defines a 'woman' as based on biological sex – a major blow to the Scottish Government's stance. The ruling also confirmed that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not alter a person's sex under the Equality Act. The legal saga began in 2017 when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, designed to boost female representation. Advertisement The legislation controversially included trans women – even those without a GRC – under the definition of 'women.' Outraged by the move, FWS argued the definition clashed with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women. Despite an initial defeat, they won on appeal in 2022, with judges declaring that biological sex could not be redefined. The Scottish Government revised its guidance, while claiming GRC holders change their legal sex. Advertisement FWS made another legal challenge, insisting that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers strictly to biological sex – a position now upheld by the Supreme Court. Today's order states that the Scottish Government is 'liable for the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court, to include the costs of one leading and one junior counsel, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed'. It is also responsible for the expenses of FWS. The Scottish Conservative Party previously revealed with a Freedom of Information request that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated FWS's judicial review. Advertisement And former SNP MP Joanna Cherry wrote on X, said the order: 'underlines the clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success'.
Daily Record
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Record
Scottish Government ordered to pay costs after landmark gender ruling
A court order, which was issued on Tuesday, confirms that taxpayers will cover costs incurred at both the Supreme Court and the Court of Session. The Scottish Government has been ordered to pay costs and expenses to For Women Scotland after they brought a landmark legal case over the definition of a woman to the UK's highest court. A court order, which was issued on Tuesday, confirms that taxpayers will cover costs incurred at both the Supreme Court and the Court of Session. Previously the campaign group said it expected to recoup about £250,000 of £417,000 it spent on the case in costs. The Supreme Court ruled that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act in a unanimous decision last month. They concluded that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. For Woman Scotland revealed a screenshot of the court order - which marked the culmination of a legal dispute that began in 2017 - in a post on X. The dispute was sparked when the Scottish Government introduced the Gender Representation on Public Boards Bill, aimed at boosting female representation. The law was amended to include trans women — including those without a GRC — as 'women'. For Women Scotland challenged this. They argued that the definition conflicted with the Equality Act 2010, which provides sex-based protections for biological women. The group, after an initial defeat, won on appeal in 2022 as judges ruled that biological sex could not be redefined. The Scottish Government then revised its guidance to state that GRC holders change their legal sex - however, For Women Scotland launched a second legal challenge, maintaining that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. The Outer House and the Inner House ruled in favour of Scottish Ministers - but the Supreme Court ultimately overturned those judgments. The court order explicitly states that 'a person whose acquired gender is the female gender by virtue of a Gender Recognition Certificate issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not come within the definition of 'woman' for the purposes of sections 11 and 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010'. It adds the same clarification regarding trans men, before specifying that 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 'refers only to biological women'. The order further states that the Scottish Government is 'liable for the appellant's costs in the Supreme Court, to include the costs of one leading and one junior counsel, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed'. It is also responsible for the expenses of For Women Scotland. Writing on X, former SNP MP Joanna Cherry KC said: "Final court order underlines clarity of the Supreme Court's judgment and provides a timely reminder for the foolhardy that generally expenses follow success. Now indeed the rights of women (and LGB rights) 'merit some attention'." The Conservative Party previously revealed through a freedom of information request that the Scottish Government had already spent almost £160,000 on legal costs associated with the judicial review brought by the campaign group.
