Last Updated on August 7, 2025 by Karl Thompson
On Wednesday 6th December 2023, the UK Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in a case that goes to the heart of one of modern feminism’s most hotly contested questions: what is a woman? The judgment clarified that gender recognition certificates (GRCs) do not entitle trans women to access single-sex spaces legally reserved for biological women. The ruling, while narrow in legal scope, has sparked fresh political and cultural debate around sex, gender identity, and women’s rights.
This latest case centred on whether a biologically male transgender woman with a GRC could access roles or spaces legally protected for women—such as political positions on boards in Scotland or NHS female-only hospital wards. The court ruled unanimously that when laws refer to “woman” and “man” in the Equality Act 2010, they mean biological woman and biological man respectively.
For a deeper sociological take on how this connects to feminist theory, you can read our core article here: Feminism and Feminist Theory. This explores different strands of feminism and how they engage with concepts like sex, gender, and patriarchy—issues very much at the heart of this judgment.
“A Testament to the Insanity of the Modern Age”?
The Daily Mail called it “a testament to the insanity of the modern age,” mocking the legal and societal confusion around what they see as a simple question. Yet the issue is far from black and white. Kate Osborne MP, writing in support of trans rights, admitted that while trans women can now legally be classed as women in some contexts, this ruling shows there are limits to that recognition.
For many feminists, the ruling affirms the necessity of protecting single-sex spaces—especially in areas like healthcare, sport, and prisons. Janice Turner in The Times wrote that the ruling vindicates women who have been told for years to “move on,” insisting that this judgment marks “a painful struggle” finally recognised by law.
On the other hand, The Guardian called the outcome “confusing,” particularly for trans people navigating inconsistent rules. The paper’s columnists pointed to the danger of “weaponising” the decision to roll back protections for transgender individuals. The court made clear that the judgment doesn’t authorise discrimination: trans women must still be treated with dignity and respect, and trans activists continue to challenge the implications for their rights.
Wider Cultural Implications
This ruling echoes similar debates across the globe. In the United States, for example, ongoing disputes over trans participation in sport and access to gendered spaces have seen court battles and state-level legislation.
The decision also highlights tensions within the feminist movement itself. Radical feminists argue that sex-based rights must be protected to combat inequality and violence, while liberal and queer feminists emphasise inclusion and identity-based rights. The court’s ruling does not settle this debate—it merely defines the legal limits within one national framework.
One pressing question raised by the case was put succinctly in The Times: “What’s the point of having a gender recognition certificate if it doesn’t make you a woman legally?” For campaigners who fought hard for legal recognition of gender identity, the ruling may feel like a step backward.
Yet for others, it marks an important correction—one that reasserts the legal and social relevance of biological sex in a world where, some argue, it has been increasingly sidelined.
Final Thoughts
Whether you see it as progress, regression, or confusion, the UK Supreme Court’s December 2023 ruling shows just how live the question still is: what is a woman? It’s not just a biological or legal question—it’s a cultural battleground, a feminist concern, and a matter of human rights.
For a detailed sociological perspective on how feminism grapples with this issue, revisit our guide to Feminist Theory and consider how the intersection of law, gender, and power continues to evolve