The logical fallacies & practical problems which arise from the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex show that a kinder & more nuanced approach is needed, argues Dr Nathan Tamblyn
- How the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s public consultation on the Equality Act 2010 reveals lingering problems with the Supreme Court’s decision about sex in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has launched a public consultation on updating its code of practice on the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. It reveals some persisting problems, which in turn suggests the need for legislative reform.
A lack of definitions
The Supreme Court said that ‘sex’ in EqA 2010 meant sex recorded at birth (see Nicholas Dobson’s article on the ruling: ‘Equality Act 2010—“man”, “woman” & “sex” defined’, NLJ, 2 May 2025, p13). They used the term ‘biological’ sex, which might suggest a scientific basis, but the Supreme Court
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7806223b_1)
