When For Women Scotland’s legal argument was published ahead of November’s appeal, director Trina Budge said: “Not tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise of 50% men, and 50% men with certificates, yet still lawfully meet the targets for female representation.
“However, the ramifications of this case are much more far-reaching and all sex-based rights protected by the Equality Act are at risk.
“The stakes are high and the court’s decision will have consequences for everyday, single-sex services such as toilets and hospital wards.
“It will determine whether a pregnant woman with a GRC is entitled to maternity leave, what it means to be same-sex attracted, and whether a man with a GRC’s entitlement to join a group of lesbians takes priority over their right to freely associate with only women.
“Trans rights are protected under the separate category of gender reassignment but, to fully guarantee women’s rights, it is increasingly clear that a consistent, biological and factual understanding of sex is the only workable solution.”
During the hearing, Ruth Crawford KC, representing the Scottish Government, said a Gender Recognition Certificates affected a “change in legal status”, and that someone with a GRC “becomes recognised as belonging to, or becoming, the sex of their acquired gender”.
She added: “We submit there are only two sexes or genders, and a person whose sex becomes that of a man or woman in consequence of a GRC belongs to that sex, and will have the protection afforded under the Equality Act”.
The Scottish Government said they were unable to comment on live legal proceedings.
