“For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers ruling.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank all hon. Members, as well as those in the Public Gallery, for their attendance. On Thursday, we will celebrate one year since the For Women Scotland judgment. That was a landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court. It clarified something that frankly should never have needed testing in the courts: that the term “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex. The ruling was a victory for the rights of women and girls; it affirmed that being a woman is a matter of biology not paperwork, and it should have ended years of uncertainty around sex-based protections.

The judgment confirmed what most people already know instinctively: biological sex matters. It matters in sport, prisons, healthcare and education. It matters for women’s safety, dignity and privacy. No amount of paperwork, policy or self-identification can change that reality. I commend the brave women who led the legal challenge. They persevered in the face of intense opposition, and finally common sense prevailed.

The Minister for Women and Equalities claimed:

“This ruling brings welcome clarity and confidence for women and service providers.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 945.]

On paper, it has done so, but if we step outside the courtroom and into workplaces across the country, that clarity often evaporates. Instead of confidence, we see utter confusion. There is still an invisible hierarchy of rights in many workplaces. The rights of biological men who identify as women are still being prioritised over the rights of actual women. Hospitals and sports centres are still allowing biological men into female-only spaces.

Even parts of the civil service, which is supposed to be the bastion of political neutrality, are still allowing trans-identifying males to use female toilets. Government Departments should be leading by example, not presiding over unlawful and out-of-date policies. The law is clear, the facts are clear, and the refusal to act is a choice. Meanwhile, women who uphold biological reality are still being challenged, disciplined and subjected to exhausting legal proceedings. One year after the For Women Scotland ruling, Government Ministers are still dodging this topic because it is politically uncomfortable.

As the charity Sex Matters has said so well,

“Complying with the law is not a culture war”.

One year later, we are still waiting for the Minister for Women and Equalities to lay the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated code of practice before Parliament. That will require businesses and public bodies to protect women-only spaces. I welcome the Minister’s written statement earlier today confirming that the Government intend to lay the code in May. That is a long-overdue development, following many months of excuses. One could be forgiven for thinking that this debate and the events planned for this week have sparked that development.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On the point about the anniversary and the statement from the Minister for Women and Equalities that she intends to lay the guidance in a matter of weeks, will my hon. Friend join me in expressing the hope that that will be the long-overdue point at which we see a step change in Government attitudes to reflect the biological facts that society understands and knows?

I sincerely hope my hon. Friend is right and that the Government will do the right thing as per the law.

The hon. Lady is being extremely generous with her time. Does she feel, as I do, that a lack of political courage is what has delayed the new guidance? That lack of political courage has fallen on the heads of people having to make these decisions, such as nurses on wards, people working in sports centres and the like. They do not have the Government guidance to stand behind and say, “This is what the law says. This is what I’ve got to do”, so they are having to make decisions and then take the flak and sometimes abuse from people who are disappointed by their choice.

I will certainly move on to some examples where there has been a great personal cost to folks who have had to lead the way on this issue.

One year later, we still need clarity on workplace regulations. Workplaces are in limbo because the revised code of practice will not even apply to them. One year later, we are still waiting for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to introduce new guidance specifically for the NHS. Last April, he promised that it would be published within weeks. The silence is deafening. These delays speak for themselves. This is not a grey area; it is not complicated. It is a failure to act on a simple legal and biological truth. Women’s safety is not a political plaything, and it should never be treated as one. The lack of progress comes at a real human cost to women across the UK.

I recently hosted Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses here in Parliament, and I am delighted that they are in the Public Gallery watching proceedings. They found themselves in the eye of the storm simply for upholding women’s rights. They are dedicated NHS professionals, not campaigners, yet they were hounded at work and dragged through the courts, not for wrongdoing, but for stating a basic biological fact. Their testimonies are deeply moving. Some of them are mothers of young children, carrying the strain not just at work, but at home.

After Jennifer Melle referred to a biological male and convicted paedophile as “Mr”, she was suspended for two years, unable to work, and she was threatened with revocation of her licence to practice. Where was her nursing union, which should have stood with her in her hour of need? It was missing in action, afraid to counter the wokeness within. Jennifer believes that what happened to her was a punishment for whistleblowing. She said:

“I did not always show it, but I was deeply traumatised by what had happened to me…I lived under fear, anxiety, and the possibility of losing the job I loved.”

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak, as it is very helpful in determining whether to put a time limit on. Given the number of Members standing, however, I will not be putting a time limit on now.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate. We are so used to having small time limits for these debates that I am afraid I have not prepared anything like as much as I would want to say.

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, sex means biological sex, not gender. A woman is an adult human female, and a male is an adult human male. That is, of course, what the vast majority of the public know simply to be true. The Supreme Court judgment was won by three courageous and formidable women: Susan, Marion and Trina, known as For Women Scotland. It was a victory for women’s rights and for gay rights as well.

Lesbians have been at the sharp end of this campaign to erode women’s rights. If the Scottish Government, Amnesty International and activist groups such as the so-called Good Law Project had their way, anyone at all could call themselves a lesbian. A lesbian would no longer simply be a woman who is attracted to other women, but could be any man calling himself a lesbian. Biological men—mostly those without any reassignment surgery—label themselves as lesbian, but they are simply men attracted to women, so straight men. Yet the lesbians are the “bigots” and “transphobes” if they dare to point that out.

This also plays out daily in the political sphere. Many activists in political parties and politicians, and some political leaders themselves, are wedded firmly to this nonsensical ideology.

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech. Does she share my concern that it plays out in the scientific arena as well? The UK Health Security Agency has been collecting data in relation to sexual health infections on the basis of gender rather than sex.

Absolutely. Of course, that is the hon. Member’s area of expertise. I know many health professionals who are incredibly frustrated at this simple twisting of facts, which should not be done at all in the NHS. I thank her for pointing that out.

With a few admirable exceptions, many Members of Parliament are unable to identify or define a woman. They reject that women’s spaces must be exclusively for biological women and have decided that those of us intent on the Equality Act being upheld are evil incarnate.

For centuries, women have had to fight for our rights. We have had to fight male threats of violence and male acts of violence. We are used to having to protect ourselves and our spaces. The very least we should expect from our own Government is the leadership and conviction to back those rights with basic and fundamental legislation. The Labour Government did that in 2010, yet here we are, 16 years later, having to force the current Government to uphold and enforce the law, and make it crystal clear to the NHS, sporting bodies, membership organisations and Government Departments that the law must be followed and adhered to—that is their job.

While the Secretary of State says that her Government have

“always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”,

men who choose to identify as women are still permitted to receive care on women’s hospital wards, access women’s toilets—including in this building—compete in the women’s category in parkrun and take women’s places in grassroots sports, and there are still men in women’s prisons. Actions speak louder than words. The law is the law, so what exactly are the Government waiting for, and why are they incapable of showing even the most basic leadership?

The Supreme Court has been clear, and trans-identifying people remain protected in law under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. None of their protections or rights have been taken away.

The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech, and I thank her for it. I think we are probably on different sides of the debate, but it is still interesting. She says that none of trans people’s rights has been taken away. I wonder whether she can explain the legal limbo that trans people feel they are in when trying to obtain a gender recognition certificate. They are required to live in their acquired gender for several months in order to obtain a certificate, but if they cannot access the spaces for the gender that they are seeking to acquire, they cannot fulfil that criterion. Does she agree that that creates a legal limbo and does actually take away some of their rights?

The hon. Member has a really good point. That lack of clarity is why we need the Government to explain fully what the EHRC is saying and how it pertains to the Equality Act. With or without a gender recognition certificate, biological men are not able to access women’s spaces—women’s toilets, women’s sports. The Supreme Court made that incredibly clear. The area of gender recognition certificates is a bit grey, and I can understand why some trans-identifying people are confused by that. That is why the Government have to step in. This is a matter of legislation.

None of the activists on my side—feminists—is saying that we want to exclude those people, make them feel terrible or give them a hard time. Bodies can introduce single-sex spaces, unisex toilets and all kinds of other activities for those people that they are allowed to take part in. We just do not want our rights to make way for biological men, who are bigger, stronger and faster, and physically potentially more dangerous to us. That is a fundamental right that many of us have fought for generations to get. Yes, there are some confusing parts, but not in the Supreme Court judgment. The Court made it very clear; the Government just have to get on with it, instead of hiding behind the judgment.

I just want to put on the record how welcome it is to see the comments of the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar. It is fair to say that Scottish Labour has been on a bit of a journey on this issue, but he has got to the right place, and I welcome that. I join the hon. Lady in stating that the Supreme Court judgment clarifies existing law. It did not change the law. It is about enforcing the existing law. Women have had their lives ruined by this issue over many years, and they are still having their lives ruined by it, as we see in the Sex Matters “One year later” report. Is the hon. Lady as baffled as I am that we still seem to have violent men—murderers, no less—in women’s prisons?

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point. We have had two quite lengthy interventions. The business is not oversubscribed, so if hon. Members wish to bob, they may well catch my eye.

Thank you for clearing that up, Mr Stringer. The hon. Gentleman makes some really good points. Sex Matters has been pointing out, especially in its new leaflet, that so many people, whom we do not get to talk about every day, are still being subjected to these ridiculous tribunals. Jennifer Melle, whom the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned, was simply a nurse referring to a biological man as a biological man in her notes. Without wanting to get into too much horrible detail, I believe she was catheterising a man, which is very different from catheterising a woman, yet she was the one subjected to hideous racial abuse and suspended from work.

These things happen every day. We know about them because we are involved with the organisations that help those people, but the general public do not necessarily hear about them and the Government seem very far removed from the reality that not stepping in is causing. Many of those cases would not have taken place if the Government had introduced guidance, spoken on the issue, or had the front to say what I know many of them secretly believe, but do not articulate because they are afraid of their own activists—I am living proof of that. That is a real shame.