Sunak urged to change law after Scottish court says definition of woman ‘not limited to birth sex’
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Rishi Sunak has been urged to change the law to protect biological women after a Scottish court appeared to widen the definition of “woman”.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh decided on Wednesday that the legal definition of woman is “not limited to biological or birth sex”, and includes those who have a gender recognition certificate (GRC) .
Gender-critical campaigners, who emphasise the importance of biological sex, said this could make it harder to stop biological men entering female-only spaces such as changing rooms, as long as they have a GRC.
In a joint letter to the Prime Minister and Kemi Badenoch, equalities minister, the groups said: “Politicians say they know what a woman is.
“But these are cheap words when those politicians do not step up and protect women’s rights, and the clarity of language, rules and laws that are needed to defend those rights.”
The signatories, including Sex Matters and the LGB Alliance, demanded Mr Sunak publish secondary legislation to clarify the relationship between the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act to make it clear that “woman” in law means “biological woman”, with a view to introducing it before the next election.
The groups called for a post-legislative scrutiny committee in Parliament to consider how the Gender Recognition Act is working in practice, and whether it is consistent with women’s rights.
They also asked him to launch a public inquiry into the erosion of protection for single-sex services, spaces and data, and the effect of this on safeguarding.
The Court of Session ruling came after a gender-critical group called For Women Scotland challenged the Scottish Government over the meaning of “woman” in law.
The Government won its case, with the court deciding that a person with a GRC is protected both in terms of their gender reassignment and their sex.
Maya Forstater, of Sex Matters, said this judgment could influence future rulings in English courts.
It went further than the previous position, she said, because in the past a GRC only changed a person’s sex for the purpose of marriage, death certificates and pensions.
The letter said: “The court declared that in the law about sex discrimination and single-sex services, the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ do not mean actual sex, but only whether a person has a certificate declaring them to be male or female.
“A certificate can be obtained by submitting a few documents that show a person has changed their name for the past two years, together with two doctors’ reports supporting their self-reported feelings of ‘gender dysphoria’.
“Being a pregnant woman is no bar to getting a certificate as a ‘man’ and being a rapist is no barrier to getting a certificate as a ‘woman’.
“Neither is the certificate forfeit when a ‘man’ gets pregnant and gives birth or when a ‘woman’ commits indecent exposure or rape.”
It added: “The Scottish Court declared that having a certificate is not simply about relations between the individual and the state in matters such as marriage and pensions, but makes someone a man or a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act, affecting their relations with employers, service-providers, public authorities and other individuals, and even their sexual orientation…
“This is in stark contrast to what we have been told for the past ten years about gender recognition certificates.
“It means that a fully intact man who obtains a certificate can apply to join a women’s association such as a self-help group of survivors of sexual violence, or an association of lesbians, and if he is turned away he can sue for discrimination.”
