A ROW over the legal definition of “woman” in Scotland is set to go to the Supreme Court.
In 2021, campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) took the Scottish Government to court over its definition of “women” in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act.
The law seeks to ensure that non-executive members on public boards are made up of at least 50% women.
READ MORE: BBC Question Time: Audience member confronts columnist on Gaza stance
The Scottish Government had initially defined “women” as those living as women or those who intended to or already gone through the process of legal gender recognition.
But FWS argued that this did not line-up with the separate definitions of women and transgender women in the Equality Act.
After losing the initial judicial review FWS were then successful on appeal, which resulted in the Scottish Government changing the definition in the Act.
It now states that “woman” is defined by the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, meaning those with a full GRC can legally be defined as women for the purposes of the legislation.
But FWC remained unhappy with the definition and called for a second judicial review, with their lawyer, Aidan O’Neill KC, arguing that allowing transgender people to change their legal sex with regards to the Equality Act would “run a coach and horses through the preservation of safe spaces for women and single-sex provision for women”.
This review was defeated in December 2022, with an appeal lost in November 2023.
However, on Friday the campaign group announced that their permission to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court had been accepted.
READ MORE: Chris Packham calls for action to save Scotland's great skuas
The court said they were satisfied “the issue of the correct interpretation of, and interplay between, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and Equality Act 2010, in particular in relation to the use of the term 'woman' and as to the consequence of the grant of a GRC under the 2004 Act, raise issues which involve arguable points of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the UKSC at this time.
“On that basis we are satisfied that leave should be granted”.
For Women Scotland said they intend to set up a CrowdJustice fundraiser to cover legal costs of the appeal.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel