In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers. This is a significant and consequential decision about the meaning of “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010. The Supreme Court’s ruling – that these words refer only to biological sex in that Act – will have been a disappointment to many in the LGBTQ+ community and their allies.

Trans people especially will have concerns about what the judgment means in practice for their equality, dignity, inclusion, and access to services. The full implications remain unclear, with Great Britain’s equality regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), having launched a consultation on its guidance which ended in June.

Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that trans people remain protected against discrimination and harassment which they face due to being transgender. In that spirit, it is surely incumbent on us all to ensure that trans people are respected, valued, and supported, like everyone else, to thrive in our society. 

This blog steps back from the case and considers the longer-term bigger picture in relation to the human rights of trans people, public law, and the courts. Public law is the field of law which regulates state power and the relationship between the individual and government. As one of the cornerstones of a free, fair and thriving society, public law has been – and remains – an essential vehicle for maintaining and expanding the human rights and dignity of everyone, including trans people, alongside social activism and political advocacy.  

There are at least three reasons why public law – particularly international protection from the European Court of Human Rights – has been crucial in making universal human rights real and practical for LGBTQ+ people over the past thirty years.

Lived experience

The first is ability and willingness of the Court to recognise the lived and living experiences of trans people in their daily lives. The landmark case of Christine Goodwin v United Kingdom decided in 2002, for example, involved a post-operative trans woman who argued that the total lack of legal recognition of her gender in UK law was a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to respect for a person’s private and family life.

The Court agreed, concluding that the UK had a positive obligation to recognise a post-operative trans person’s gender for some legal purposes. The Court’s reasons reveal a grounded, insightful, and compassionate attitude. It did not dismiss Christine Goodwin’s concerns as trivial or misplaced but instead demonstrated a capacity to make her experiences visible and valued. The judges noted that: 

“It must also be recognised that serious interference with private life can arise where the state of domestic law conflicts with an important aspect of personal identity… The stress and alienation arising from a discordance between the position in society assumed by a post-operative [trans person] and the status imposed by law which refuses to recognise the change of gender cannot, in the Court’s view, be regarded as a minor inconvenience arising from a formality. A conflict between social reality and law arises which places the [trans person] in an anomalous position, in which he or she may experience feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety.” (para. 77) 

More than this, the Court recognised that, while the UK may be required to make administrative and legal changes which may take time and modestly increase costs, this was part and parcel of a fair and humane society: 

“The Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.” (para. 91) 

Personal and bodily autonomy

The second reason why public law has been crucial for the rights of LGBTQ+ people is its ability and willingness to defend and promote the personal and bodily autonomy of trans people. In a case called X and Y v Romania decided in 2021, for example, the Court considered Romanian legislation which refused to legally recognise a trans person’s preferred gender without gender affirming surgery.   

The Court found that this absolute rule was a violation of Article 8, given that it forced trans people into a humiliating choice – have surgery which you do not want or do not have your identity recognised: 

“The Court sees this as a rigidity of reasoning regarding the recognition of the applicants’ sexual identity which placed them, for an unreasonable and continuous period, in a troubling situation instilling in them feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety… [T]he domestic courts placed the applicants, who did not want gender reassignment surgery, in an insoluble dilemma: either undergo the surgery against their will and renounce the full exercise of their right to respect for their physical integrity… or renounce recognition of their sexual identity.” (para. 165) 

Holding nations accountable

The third role of public law has been to impose accountability when national authorities fall short of the European and international consensus to protect rights. In AM v Russia decided in 2021, for example, the Court considered a case where the Russian courts would not permit a trans woman to have access to her children on the basis – without evidence – that this would confuse and traumatise them.  

With reference to several European and international legal instruments – including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Resolutions of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly – the Court determined that this was a violation of Article 8 and Article 14, which prohibits discrimination in the protection of rights.

This ‘holding the line’ function is crucial, ensuring that nations do not fall below the minimum international consensus needed to protect the human rights of LGBTQ+ people. As the Court put it in Goodwin 20 years earlier: 

“Since the Convention is first and foremost a system for the protection of human rights, the Court must… respond, for example, to any evolving convergence as to the standards to be achieved…It is of crucial importance that the Convention is interpreted and applied in a manner which renders its rights practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory. A failure by the Court to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach would indeed risk rendering it a bar to reform or improvement.” (para. 74)

What happens now?

Public law is unlikely to produce outcomes which are uniformly celebrated and 2025, more than most, will have been a disappointing year for many LGBTQ+ people and their allies. Nevertheless, public law has proved to be an important instrument for defending and promoting liberal, progressive change. It will always retain that potential.

Pride Month is an important time to take stock of what has been achieved, reflect honestly about what else needs to be done, and to dream and envision what society should look like for LGBTQ+ people in the years to come – free, dignified, respectful, and inclusive. We must ensure that public law is a fundamental part of achieving that vision.