“For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary

Debate between Iqbal Mohamed and Marie Goldman

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate on the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland Ltd v. the Scottish Ministers ruling. I also thank her and other colleagues in this Chamber for their work on these sensitive issues surrounding sex and gender. They have helped ensure that Parliament continues to grapple with these issues in a careful and thoughtful manner.

This issue has faced our society since before I became a Member; and even before I entered this place, it was clear that it was being weaponised, one human being against another, by people who do not always have the best interests of those groups or human beings at heart. I am struggling to put into words my complete confusion that, in the 21st century in the UK Parliament, we are debating what a woman is. It is Adam and Eve, if you are people of faith or believe in the origin of human beings, and even if you are not people of faith, people have known what a woman and a man are since the beginning of time.

I stand here with full respect for those who feel or want to be or, for whatever reason that I do not understand, believe that they are a different gender from the biological sex that they are in. However, women’s rights have been less, and diminished, for centuries, and every single year they are fighting on many fronts for equality. I have stood in this place and in the main Chamber talking about women’s rights on healthcare, maternity rights and gender pay equality—things that men have taken for granted but where they have imposed a substandard level of right on women. It is completely unacceptable. But here we are now, questioning the fundamental biology of women—not just in this place, in this country, but everywhere in the world. I cannot reconcile the situation that we have faced.

When the Supreme Court finally gave a ruling that clearly defined what a man and a woman are under the law, we expected this gaslighting, this aggressive lobbying and this fighting between fellow human beings to, hopefully, recede with clear guidance, rules and processes at parliamentary level, at a legal level and at an employment rights level. But here we are a year later, and the Government have been dilly-dallying and sitting on the ruling, which does not change the law, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said.

The anniversary provides an opportunity not only to reflect on the nature of this specific ruling, but to reaffirm the fundamental principle that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, the judgments of our highest courts must be respected and properly implemented. The Supreme Court’s ruling of 16 April 2025 brought much-needed legal clarity. It confirmed that, within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, references to “sex”, “man” and “woman” are to be understood as referring to biological sex. How somebody felt that they referred to something else, I cannot understand. That was not the creation of a new law, but the authoritative interpretation of legislation passed by Parliament.

I stand here with women constituents, men constituents, trans women constituents, trans male constituents and people who are still trying to find their way through their biology and feelings, and I stand for each and every one of those without fear or favour. I have met trans people in my constituency, both those who have transitioned fully, so they are either a man or a woman because biologically they have transitioned, and those who have not transitioned and have a gender recognition certificate or live their life as the opposite gender.

[Marie Goldman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Everyone is being generous with their time today, and I am grateful. He said that people have transitioned “biologically”. I thought biology was either one thing or the other and was immutable. Could he explain that point?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I am not a medical doctor—there are experts in this room—but if somebody has gone through operations under the NHS and that is medically assessed and professionally delivered, I respect their current biological status. If I have used the wrong language, I apologise, but these are special cases. The case that the hon. Member mentioned earlier in an intervention, where somebody had had breast cancer and had a double mastectomy, and may be misidentified as male, is a special case; that person has gone through a physical change that may make others see something different from who they are. Those are separate arguments to biological males identifying as women.

As I was saying, none of these transgender constituents of mine has come to me and said, “I want to be entering single-sex spaces of the other gender to make me feel that I am who I believe that I am.” I think that needs to be understood—that this view is not universal across the transgender community.

Clarity in the law is profoundly important. Without it, public bodies, service providers and indeed individuals are left navigating uncertainty. Inconsistent interpretations risk undermining both compliance with and confidence in our legal system, to distressing effect. Rights that already exist in law for any gender, biological sex, man or woman, cannot be usurped by new demands from people in our community, whether it is trans, or Muslims, or Christians, or people of no faith. Rights, once they are acquired and in law, should be protected and implemented, and any new demands or changes required to support in full other members of the community who may differ must be grappled with and dealt with by the Government without undermining existing rights.

The Court’s judgment provides a clear, coherent framework within which decisions can be made, particularly in relation to single-sex services, which the Equality Act explicitly permits. Yet this judgment did not remove rights from trans people. Protections preventing discrimination remain firmly in place, as they should. Trans rights are human rights where they are not impinging on somebody else’s human rights. That is a really clear distinction that we need to make.

This is not a zero-sum question of one group’s rights being set against another’s, with gains for one group coming only at the expense, or at the loss, of the rights of another. Rather, it is about ensuring that the law is applied as intended, recognising distinct protected characteristics and giving effect to each in a way that is workable and, crucially, fair. Of course, implementation must be done sensitively and responsibly, taking pains to ensure that the human rights and dignity of all are respected. The law already allows for flexibility to accommodate this.

It is therefore really difficult to understand why the public sector, especially the NHS, is spending hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of pounds on going to tribunals, knowing that it will lose, for an ideological, entrenched reason. That should not be happening. That money should be spent treating women, trans women, trans men and other patients within the NHS. I pay tribute to the Darlington nurses and Jennifer Melle for being here, and for being the light, or the source of information, around this topic, having gone through so much suffering and persecution to stand up for their basic human rights as biological females.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman]

I will make some more progress.

That requirement is unworkable. There is not one of us here who does not know how stressed our local small businesses are. How could it ever be proportionate to require overstretched staff in these businesses to police gender norms for their own customers to access a facility as basic as a toilet? The business community has already loudly voiced its concerns. In September last year, hundreds of businesses signed a letter opposing the EHRC draft proposals, given the impact they would have on their employees and their costs, as well as the legal risk they would create.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The hon. Member is talking about employers and their preferences, but they oppose gender equal pay—they would rather pay women less than men to make more profits. Just because some company says they disagree with something or they are against it does not make it wrong. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Marie Goldman]

The hon. Gentleman might be confusing two very different issues. There are deeply upsetting impacts on cisgender women, too, including heartbreaking stories, as I mentioned earlier, of women who have undergone cancer treatment being questioned over which toilet they use because they do not conform with what a woman “ought” to look like.

I am pretty sure that nobody in this Chamber today wants to live in a country where those who have suffered from cancer are worried that they will be challenged on their appearance when trying to use public toilets. Requiring women to use separate facilities, such as disabled toilets, instead of spaces that match their gender is also not a workable solution. I have heard from trans and non-binary individuals who say that it would effectively out them, exposing them to a greater risk of harassment or even violence and depriving them of their right to privacy.

Organisations that want to be inclusive have also been affected. Last year in a statement to the House, in which she welcomed the clarity provided by the Supreme Court, the Minister for Women and Equalities said:

“of course providers can offer inclusive services, should they choose to do so, so long as they are clear about who they are offering their services to.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 959WH.]

However, that has not been the case. I ask the Minister to clarify whether the Government’s position on that point has changed.

Along with Liberal Democrat colleagues, I have regularly called on the Minister for Women and Equalities to take action to solve these serious issues. I therefore cautiously welcome the news that the Government intend to lay the code in May. That will hopefully bring an end to the uncertainty and worry that the trans community, businesses and organisations have been exposed to for too long.

The Minister must ensure, however, that the new guidance is workable and inclusive. The Liberal Democrats will accept nothing less. It must lay out how it will protect the dignity, safety and rights of all, and ensure that trans people are not prevented from participating in public life because there are no facilities that they can safely use. As I think many of us would agree, it is also essential that the guidance is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. It must have a full debate and a free vote.