“For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary

Jonathan Hinder Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rosie Duffield]

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.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

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?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this important debate, even though I know we are on slightly different sides of it.

For far too long, trans, non-binary and intersex people have understandably been left anxious and fearful about the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling. In its judgment, the Supreme Court stated:

“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010.”

Would the Minister therefore confirm that the judgment does not and will not affect the interpretation of any other Acts of Parliament?

The ruling also reaffirmed that trans people continue to be protected from discrimination under the Equality Act. Unfortunately, a year on, the Government have still not provided adequate detail on how that will be achieved. Instead, they have created a legal minefield that has left trans, intersex and non-binary people in limbo while exposing businesses and organisations to costly legal action.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft code of practice, which was leaked in November, only worsened the environment. Trans people who hold gender recognition certificates have explained to me the legal limbo that they now find themselves in. During the lengthy process to obtain such a certificate, they are required to provide formal evidence that they live, and will continue to live, in their acquired gender, yet the draft EHRC guidance indicated that they may be required to use facilities based on their birth sex. That simply is not a coherent legal position, and we urgently need clarity on the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling for someone trying to obtain a gender recognition certificate.

The draft EHRC guidance also proposed that staff working across the economy, from hotels and hospitals to cinemas and care homes, could be required to question people about their sex based on how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others, and refuse access to them if there is doubt they are telling the truth about their sex. That is unacceptable and unworkable. It would put trans and non-binary people in unsafe situations, and it is inevitable that it would acutely impact women and girls.

[Jonathan Hinder]

The hon. Lady is outlining cases where the application of that guidance might be difficult. Does she think that it would be difficult for someone to determine whether I, given the way I look, should be in a women’s single-sex space?

[Marie Goldman]

I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s intervention in a slightly different way. There is something called the 80:20 rule, which states that, in pretty much anything in life, we should put 80% of our effort into 20% of situations. The vast majority of the time, it is really easy to deal with situations, including the one the hon. Gentleman just outlined. The hard work—the 80%—comes in 20% of the cases. It might not be that exact ratio, but a lot of the time we have to work a lot harder to deal with the cases that are in the margins and harder to determine. I know that from my past work in IT, but it applies to lots of other things.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that he would be instantly recognisable as a man, and would be able to use facilities for men, and I would not disagree, but there are many situations—certainly a minority, but they should still be handled with care—where it is not as easy to determine. As a country that is caring, we should not ignore those situations. How a country or society looks after its most vulnerable people, who are usually part of minority groups, is how it should be judged, so I suggest that we need to take care on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman]

One of the most important things is how we behave towards each other as a society. I do not want women, men or anybody to have fit into stereotypes. The hon. Lady is absolutely right—we want to live in a society where we accept people for who they are.

[Jonathan Hinder]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Hinder]

Does the hon. Member accept that, as she says, men are generally the ones who attack women and that, if we do not have single-sex spaces, predatory men will use circumstances that are to their benefit to attack women? That is exactly why we need single-sex spaces.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. Can the hon. Lady bring her comments to a close, having answered the hon. Gentleman’s question?