For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent)
Can a trans woman, after attaining gender recognition certificate be a part of public boards in UK? Well, the straight answer is NO. Well let's explore the answer.

On April 16 2025, UK Supreme Court cancelled the Scottish Government decision that allowed tans-women with Gender Recognition certificate to be appointed in public board as a woman. This led a swing of joy for the appellant and caused an upright in trans community. The court in judgement (point 2) clearly states that the court addresses the definition of women within the ambit of EA 2010 and not the arguments are that in public domain on the meaning of gender and sex. The matter for the court is to address the statutory interpretation.

For the matter before court, the issues revolve around section 9 (whole), the case law on the operation of section 9 (1) and section 9(3). This section then linked with the equality act 2010 , where representation for 50% (aim to achieve) should be assigned to woman for public boards.

Can a trans women , after attaining gender recognition certificate be a part of public boards in UK? Well the straight answer is NO. Well let's explore the answer.

What are trans women and trans men (terminologies adopted by the court)
A person who is a biological man, ie who was at birth of the male sex, but who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described as a "trans woman". Similarly, a person who is a biological woman, ie who was at birth of the female sex, but who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described as a "trans man".

These Expression Was Also Adopted In Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.

The expression biological sex to be described as the sex of a person at birth. And the expression certificated sex to be described as the sex attained by gender recognition certificate.
The question raised and addressed by the court is that if EA 2010 treats women for all purposes within its provision; and the methods or to evaluate this was inspired by Lord Bingham of Cornhill who stated that, 'controversial provision should be read with act as whole and the whole act should be read int historical context of the situation'.

However, this wasn't the first peal for judicial review by the appellants in the court, in the first judicial review the appellant challenged the statutory definition of women in section2 of Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The ruling came out in their favour as court decided that definition of woman is outside the scope of the Scottish legislature to decided. The Scottish Ministry released the fresh statutory guidance on 19 April 2022. However, the appellant felt repugnant to that newly issued statutory guidance and filed a judicial review in July in same year.

On December 13 2022 Lord Haldane heard the appellant and dismissed the petition.
And after all this the appellants had finally appealed in UK Supreme Court.
The matter represented in SC, U.K.

Several organizations filled appeal in the court from which court allowed 4 to intervene form writing and 2 for oral submissions. The judgement sites the legal background of and many acts for instance Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Sda) , Equal Pay Act 1970. Later in 1999, P v S and Cornwall County Council (Case C-13/94) [1996] ICR 795, [1996] ECR I-2143 ("P v S") , this case led many major changes in SDA of 1970, now that with new decision the definition of discrimination was incorporated and most importantly the 'gender reassignment' was also defined. However, none of this amended the definition of man and woman.

The Introduction of Gender Representation ACT 2004 By European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR").

The applicant for this case was initially male and had undergone gender reassignment surgery. The case was for legal recognition of her gender identity. As there was none at the time, which clearly breached her right to private life under article 8. This Judgement is known as The Goodwin Judgment. This judgement was considered in House of Lords where the lordships were invited to declare a marriage valid by a women and trans women. The GRA 2004 came into force on 4 April 2005 and provides a framework for recognising a person's reassigned gender.

Section 1 grants that if the person is aged 18 or over can apply for GRC, where the applicant have to satisfy 4 criteria. One criterion that is paid more weight is 'gender dysphoria' , these reports must be submitted by a registered medical practitioner or charted psychologist in the field of gender dysphoria.

Section 9 plays pivotal role where it states that 'after full GRC issued to a person, that gender becomes acquired gender for all purposes.

The appellant argued that that section 9 (1), as it was incorporated to address certain challenges , which has now been addressed by the legislative. However, court disagreed an and said that they still believe that act still hold relevance for providing legal recognition of the rights of transgender people.

The court pointed out error in the explanatory notes in GRA 2004 under section 9(3). According to Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) section 9 (3) described that the general proposition in section 9 (1) was subject to exceptions made by the act itself. In short section 9(3) don't correctly interpret section 9(1). The also addressed this limiting application of section 9 (3) enacted might in some case produce results adverse to the trans community.

'For all purposes' these 3 words contain great authority in determining this judgement while linking it with the equality act 2010.

For All Purposes.
Credits: Govt.uk website for the judgment