EBSWA Statement on Impact of the Supreme Court Judgment on the meaning of Sex in the Equality Act
- EBSWA
- Apr 21
- 2 min read
EBSWA welcomes the Supreme Court ruling that sex in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, and that the terms “man” and “woman” in the Act refer to biological sex at birth, which is immutable. Therefore with or without a GRC a person remains their biological sex for purposes of that Act.
For Women Scotland took the case to the Supreme Court in order to challenge a ruling by the highest court in Scotland that a Gender Recognition Certificate entitled a man to be accepted as a woman for almost all purposes, including accessing women-only spaces and services, and to take up women-only appointments.
The ruling highlights the conflict between women’s rights to single sex care and services and allowing people of the opposite sex to self identify into those services. This ruling makes clear that this has been a misinterpretation of the law.
The judgment also made clear that people who identify as transgender are protected from discrimination and harassment as they acquire the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”. As Social workers we need to ensure we practice in anti-discriminatory ways, and are enabled to practice with respectful professional curiosity in our work.
Social work regulators and providers of social work and social care services must now recognise that there has never been any legal authority for interpreting the Equality Act to treat people with the Protected Characteristic of Gender reassignment as if they are the opposite to their actual sex.
An immediate impact of the Supreme Court judgement is that social workers will now be able to challenge service providers robustly to ensure single sex services are not allowing or being required to allow people of the opposite sex to use them. We will also be able to raise concerns about policies which advocate for allowing people to use whichever toilet or changing room they want to use, or to claim to be the opposite sex when providing a same sex service. This is the current policy in many local authorities and has implications for the safety and dignity of all.
Instead of protecting the rights and interests of services users, regulators and employers have abused their authority and power to persecute social workers who raised concerns. Social workers such as Rachel Mead and Lizzie Pitts and others have been subject to complaint, investigation and persecution including job loss or demotion for questioning the ethics and the safety of policies and practice adopted. Others have been effectively silenced by the threat of these consequences such that there has been little or no consultation or testing of evidence within the profession.
EBSWA will continue to provide a voice for professional concerns and work to ensure that Social Work England, CAFCASS, Care Inspectorate Scotland, and Chief Social Work Officers acknowledge and act on the Supreme Court ruling. We urge all social workers to add their voices and bring an end to the silencing of professional concerns.
We append the judgement in full, and a briefing by Sex Matters, with practical advice for organisations.
21 April 2025
Comments