Subject: Urgent Concern: Supreme Court Ruling on Equality Act and Transgender & Intersex Rights (For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers)

Dear [name] MP,

I am writing to you today as a deeply concerned constituent regarding the alarming judgment delivered by the UK Supreme Court on 16 April 2025 in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (UKSC 16). This ruling, which dictates that the protected characteristic of "sex" within the Equality Act 2010 refers exclusively to biological sex, represents a drastic and dangerous step backwards for the rights, dignity, and safety of transgender people in the UK, and further marginalises intersex individuals.  

Knowing your consistent record of standing up for equality, human rights, and marginalised communities, I urge you to recognise the profound and potentially devastating impact of this decision. While the Court stated that protections under the characteristic of "gender reassignment" remain, this ruling effectively hollows out the core principle of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 – that a person's acquired gender is their gender for all purposes. It creates a deeply damaging two-tiered system where the legal identity of transgender individuals, even those with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), is disregarded in the very legislation designed to protect them from discrimination based on sex.  

This judgment is not merely a technical legal interpretation; it has severe real-world consequences. It provides legal cover for the exclusion of transgender people, particularly trans women, from single-sex spaces and services deemed essential for participation in public life. This could impact access to vital support like domestic violence refuges, healthcare settings, and more, directly contradicting the aim of fostering an inclusive society.  

Furthermore, this ruling relies on a flawed and incomplete understanding of biological sex itself, ignoring the scientific and medical consensus. Major international bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Psychological Association (APA) distinguish between biological sex assigned at birth and gender identity – a person's deeply felt internal sense of being. Critically, the Court's insistence on a strict biological binary ignores the reality of intersex people, whose biological characteristics (like chromosomes, hormones, or anatomy) do not fit neatly into typical male or female categories. The WHO's own definition of sex explicitly acknowledges intersex variations alongside male and female. By basing equality law on an inaccurate biological binary, the ruling not only harms transgender people but also legally erases the existence of intersex individuals, who, it should be noted, also lack explicit protection under the Equality Act 2010. This foundation is scientifically unsound and exclusionary.  

From a human rights perspective, this decision is deeply troubling. The European Court of Human Rights has recognised gender identity as integral to personal identity under Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and has stressed the importance of legal gender recognition. Creating legal inconsistencies that treat transgender people differently based on their assigned sex at birth, despite legal recognition, raises serious questions under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). This ruling risks undermining the dignity and autonomy the ECHR seeks to protect.  

History teaches us sobering lessons about the dangers of legally marginalising minority groups. The systematic persecution of LGBTQ+ people in Nazi Germany, for instance, involved using legal definitions (like Paragraph 175) and pseudo-scientific justifications to strip individuals of their rights, categorise them as threats to societal norms, restrict their participation in public life, and ultimately subject them to horrific violence.

While the context is different, the pattern of using legal interpretation based on flawed biological arguments to exclude and undermine the identity of vulnerable groups is a dangerous historical echo we must vehemently resist. This ruling risks validating transphobic narratives and emboldening those who seek to further erode the rights of transgender people.  

Given the gravity of this situation and your commitment to social justice, I implore you to take the following actions:  

• Speak Out: Publicly condemn the harmful implications of this ruling for transgender and intersex people in [your borough] and across the UK. Reaffirm that trans rights are human rights and that equality law must reflect biological reality accurately, including intersex variations.
• Engage Directly: Meet with transgender and intersex constituents and leading rights organisations (such as Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence, Scottish Trans, Intersex UK) to understand the direct impact of this ruling and how best to support these communities.
• Advocate in Parliament and Party: Push within the Labour Party and Parliament for urgent measures to reaffirm the rights of transgender and intersex people. This must include advocating for legislative solutions that ensure the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 work cohesively and are based on accurate scientific understanding and inclusive definitions. This could involve amendments explicitly recognising acquired gender for EA 2010 purposes, robust GRA reform, and consideration of explicit protections for intersex individuals.
• Challenge Hostile Narratives: Actively challenge the transphobic and intersex-exclusionary narratives that this ruling may fuel, promoting understanding based on human rights, dignity, and scientific consensus.

This is a critical moment. We cannot allow legal interpretations based on incomplete science and exclusionary definitions to undermine the fundamental rights and identities of marginalised people. I trust that you will treat this matter with the urgency and seriousness it deserves and stand firmly as an ally to the trans and intersex communities.

I look forward to hearing from you on how you plan to address these urgent concerns.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]

[Your Address]

[Your Postcode]

Constituent, [borough]