Charities say the judgment creates ‘a legal framework that simply cannot uphold the dignity’ of trans people

Fourteen national LGBTQ+ charities have written to Keir Starmer seeking an urgent meeting to discuss what they describe as “a genuine crisis for the rights, dignity and inclusion of trans people in the UK” after the supreme court’s ruling on biological sex.

The UK supreme court ruled last month that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 referred only to “a biological woman” and to “biological sex”, with subsequent advice from the equality watchdog amounting to a blanket ban on trans people using toilets and other services of the gender they identify as.

Eddie Redmayne, Katie Leung and Nicola Coughlan among those expressing solidarity after supreme court ruling

More than 400 actors and film industry professionals have signed an open letter pledging their “solidarity” with the trans, non-binary, and intersex communities who have been affected by the recent supreme court ruling.

Eddie Redmayne, Katie Leung, Nicola Coughlan, Charlotte Ritchie and Paapa Essiedu are among those to have signed the letter addressing the film and television industry as well as cultural bodies.

Bella Ramsey, James Norton, Joe Alwyn, Himesh Patel, Harris Dickinson and the director Ken Loach are also signatories.

In mid-April, supreme court judges unanimously ruled the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.

This means a gender recognition certificate (GRC) does not change a person’s legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.

The ruling has been interpreted to mean that trans women can be excluded from women-only spaces like toilets and changing rooms.

The open letter said: “We believe the ruling undermines the lived reality and threatens the safety of trans, non-binary, and intersex people living in the UK.”

It added the film and television community had previously come together in response to the Me Too and Black Lives Matter movements by “reflecting” upon working practices and “uplifting” a broad spectrum of voices.

The LGBTQ+ rights charity’s former head Ben Summerskill and the parent of a trans-identifying young person respond to coverage of the recent supreme court ruling

Both Gaby Hinsliff, in her typically thoughtful piece ( If Britain is now resetting the clock on trans rights, where will that leave us?, 18 April ), and your correspondent who says “All sensible, two-way discussion of this topic has been prevented” ( Letters, 22 April ) highlight the risks that both trans people and many other individuals and organisations face from continuing uncertainty over an important area of public policy.

Sadly, a significant contribution to the prevention of sensible, two-way discussion of this sensitive issue was Stonewall’s 2015 decision to adopt an approach of “no debate” – online, on public platforms and in the broadcast media. This has now had huge reputational and financial consequences for the charity, where dozens of staff have since faced redundancy.

Amid the debate about trans people on hospital wards we have lost sight of dignity, respect and the horrifying reality of a health service in meltdown

Another morning, another absolutely bananas conversation about transgender people, without any trans people involved, following the supreme court ruling that permits the exclusion from single-sex spaces of anyone not born into that sex. On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Emma Barnett was asking care minister Stephen Kinnock about wards in hospitals, and came out with the immortal line: “Do you think it’s right for trans people to be segregated from other patients, as an interim measure, or for the future?”

Great save, that “for the future” – because if you’re going to interpret this ruling as a requirement to exclude trans people, what does that mean in practice? Trans women on men’s wards, trans men on women’s wards? This delivers dignity and respect to precisely no one; so, sure, “segregate” away, and it would have to be for ever, because it would otherwise be an interim measure on the way to what? The relentless demonisation of trans people has led us straight to a place where every choice is impossible, using words that recall, or should recall, the darkest days of prejudice and hatred.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here .

Pat McFadden said ‘there isn’t going to be toilet police’ amid warnings about ‘incredibly dangerous’ consequences

A UK government minister has said that trans people are now banned from using toilets of the gender they identify as, amid warnings about the “incredibly dangerous” consequences of such a blanket prohibition.

The UK supreme court ruled earlier this month that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer only to a biological woman and to biological sex.

EHRC releases guidance in response to supreme court ruling, saying trans men and women need ‘suitable alternatives’

The UK’s equalities watchdog has said trans women and men “should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use” as it issued interim guidance after the supreme court ruling on biological sex.

Trans women “should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities” in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals, the EHRC said, and the same applies to trans men, who are biologically female, using men’s toilets.

The UK supreme court’s recent gender ruling made me think of the sublime sculptures – created from trash – by this artist who escaped persecution in Uganda. They stand for unity over division

In 2022, two wooden sculptures stood on the riverbanks of Brooklyn. Configured as bodies with multiple heads, the monumental works – part of a larger group titled Agali Awamu, which translates as “Togetherness” – towered over those who interacted with them. They appeared as an antidote to the silver, white or green reflective buildings that stood behind them: hand-carved and human-like, with mouths that appeared to be singing or whistling, and eyes barely open, perhaps to signify a joyous introspection. While one was made up of two bodies conjoined at the hip, the other had billowing hair and carried faces on its back and belly, which seemed to be singing in harmony. The sculptures looked peaceful, and protective of each other and of those who walked past them.

From far away these figures, created by the Ugandan-born, New York-based artist Leilah Babirye, looked regal. They stood tall, adorned with glistening belts and jewellery. But up close, you noticed that their ornaments were made up of rusty chains, old wire, used bolts and bicycle parts – objects once discarded, deemed as meaningless, but whose beauty had been noticed by the artist. She reused them for a celebratory monument of power and protection.

A legal milestone that’s raising questions about how transgender Britons will be able to navigate public spaces

In a landmark ruling, the UK supreme court has found that, under the Equality Act 2010, “sex” means biological sex – an unambiguous legal position with profoundly ambiguous social consequences. In doing so, the bench overruled the Scottish courts and curbed devolved lawmaking . Crucially, the court said that a gender recognition certificate (GRC) doesn’t change someone’s sex under equality legislation. The judgment offers what many policymakers – including Sir Keir Starmer – crave: clarity. Amid the fog of culture wars, it was a moment of legal lucidity.

Many women’s rights advocates saw the ruling as a firm defence of sex-based rights, especially where privacy from those perceived as male feels essential. A great number of trans people felt devastated by a judgment they fear will be weaponised. Its impact depends on norms , discretion and politics: trans women can still compete with women in football, but not athletics. The domestic violence charity Refuge says its support for trans women won’t change. The legal view may be clear, but how it plays out in practice is anything but.

A ruling on equality law has caused relief, fear – and confusion. Libby Brooks reports

On paper it does not sound like something that would spark nationwide interest. Last week the UK supreme court gave its judgment on a case brought by a women’s group against the Scottish government over the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.

But its judgment – that the word “woman” in equality law refers only to biological sex – has upended years of legal interpretation. And the news of the ruling led to celebrations, protest and an outpouring of emotion.