“For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary

Caroline Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carla Lockhart]

I sincerely hope my hon. Friend is right and that the Government will do the right thing as per the law.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is being extremely generous with her time. Does she feel, as I do, that a lack of political courage is what has delayed the new guidance? That lack of political courage has fallen on the heads of people having to make these decisions, such as nurses on wards, people working in sports centres and the like. They do not have the Government guidance to stand behind and say, “This is what the law says. This is what I’ve got to do”, so they are having to make decisions and then take the flak and sometimes abuse from people who are disappointed by their choice.

[Carla Lockhart]

I will certainly move on to some examples where there has been a great personal cost to folks who have had to lead the way on this issue.

One year later, we still need clarity on workplace regulations. Workplaces are in limbo because the revised code of practice will not even apply to them. One year later, we are still waiting for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to introduce new guidance specifically for the NHS. Last April, he promised that it would be published within weeks. The silence is deafening. These delays speak for themselves. This is not a grey area; it is not complicated. It is a failure to act on a simple legal and biological truth. Women’s safety is not a political plaything, and it should never be treated as one. The lack of progress comes at a real human cost to women across the UK.

I recently hosted Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses here in Parliament, and I am delighted that they are in the Public Gallery watching proceedings. They found themselves in the eye of the storm simply for upholding women’s rights. They are dedicated NHS professionals, not campaigners, yet they were hounded at work and dragged through the courts, not for wrongdoing, but for stating a basic biological fact. Their testimonies are deeply moving. Some of them are mothers of young children, carrying the strain not just at work, but at home.

After Jennifer Melle referred to a biological male and convicted paedophile as “Mr”, she was suspended for two years, unable to work, and she was threatened with revocation of her licence to practice. Where was her nursing union, which should have stood with her in her hour of need? It was missing in action, afraid to counter the wokeness within. Jennifer believes that what happened to her was a punishment for whistleblowing. She said:

“I did not always show it, but I was deeply traumatised by what had happened to me…I lived under fear, anxiety, and the possibility of losing the job I loved.”

When we compare Jennifer Melle’s case with the Darlington nurses’ case, we can see a pattern emerging. After a biological male was allowed to use their changing room, the Darlington nurses raised legitimate concerns about privacy and safety. Instead of being listened to, they were told they needed to be “re-educated” and to “broaden their mindset”. They were left with no other option but to take legal action. These nurses were already working flat out, caring for others, holding the system together and doing their job with skill and dedication every single day. That should be enough. They should not have been forced to fight for their legal rights.

Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses have shown tremendous courage and conviction, but let us be honest, that has come at a price: a personal toll, a professional toll, time, stress and reputation. Despite their legal victories, the punishment has been in the process. Women across the country are watching these legal cases unfolding and drawing the obvious conclusion: “Keep your head down or risk your livelihood.” The result is a chilling effect that should trouble every Member of this House.

Women are self-censoring. They are being forced to choose between telling the truth and keeping their jobs. They see colleagues hauled before tribunals, threatened with professional sanctions and subjected to reputational harm. Understandably, they often decide that it is simply not worth the risk. Bethany Hutchison, one of the Darlington nurses, put it this way:

“A culture of fear took over, not among those breaking safeguarding norms, but among the women raising concerns. Many vulnerable colleagues, often the breadwinners in their households, felt intimidated into dropping their complaints, until only eight of us remained.”

That is what happens when an institution closes rank and sidelines women’s voices.

It should not be down to individual women to contest gender ideology in the workplace. The Government should be backing women all the way, ensuring that they are treated with the safety and dignity that they deserve. Instead, a whole year has passed and still those on the frontline are being left to navigate these complex and sensitive issues alone. Silence is not neutral; it sends a clear message that women’s rights come second to political sensitivities and noisy activists. A ruling that exists only on paper is not enough. The Government must act, not with warm words, but with real, practical guidance that ensures that women are protected, not punished, for asserting their rights.

To briefly address the position in Northern Ireland, it is quite frankly extraordinary that we are even having to contemplate a different application of the ruling within the United Kingdom. The suggestion that the Windsor framework could create divergence on something as fundamental as the definition of a woman raises serious questions about sovereignty and equal rights across this country. Women in Northern Ireland should not have less clarity or protection than women in England, Scotland or Wales. I call on the Minister to give absolute clarity that this UK Government will stand up for women in Northern Ireland.

I am glad that, despite some of the noise and legal challenges around this issue, our Education Minister has moved to release guidance to schools. He made it clear that single-sex spaces in schools should be based on biological sex and that the safety, dignity and privacy of girls must be protected. That was a proportionate and practical response to the law as it stands and I welcome it. That stands in stark contrast to the delays that we are seeing elsewhere.

I end with three requests of the Government. First, I urge the Minister for Women and Equalities to lay the EHRC’s updated code of practice before this House as a matter of urgency—no more prevaricating; no more delay. While the Minister has today finally indicated that that will happen in May, we must ask why clarity has not been provided far sooner. Secondly, I urge the Minister to provide guidance for workplaces. Employers must be left in no doubt that single-sex spaces are reserved for people of the same biological sex. No employee should be compelled to use a person’s preferred pronouns.

Thirdly, I urge the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to fulfil his promise and issue guidance on single-sex spaces in the NHS specifically. In the absence of leadership from the Government, others have already stepped in. The Darlington Nursing Union and the Christian Legal Centre have already produced draft guidance for NHS trusts. It is ready, workable and would help ensure that no more women are forced to endure what Jennifer Melle and the Darlington nurses faced. I thank Christian Concern for its support for Jennifer and the Darlington nurses.

Let us be clear: the For Women Scotland ruling was a victory on paper, but in many cases it still needs implementing in practice. Biology should not be disputed in any sector. A woman is not a feeling. A woman is not an identity. A woman is a biological reality. We must act now to ensure that women are heard, protected and respected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate. We are so used to having small time limits for these debates that I am afraid I have not prepared anything like as much as I would want to say.

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, sex means biological sex, not gender. A woman is an adult human female, and a male is an adult human male. That is, of course, what the vast majority of the public know simply to be true. The Supreme Court judgment was won by three courageous and formidable women: Susan, Marion and Trina, known as For Women Scotland. It was a victory for women’s rights and for gay rights as well.

Lesbians have been at the sharp end of this campaign to erode women’s rights. If the Scottish Government, Amnesty International and activist groups such as the so-called Good Law Project had their way, anyone at all could call themselves a lesbian. A lesbian would no longer simply be a woman who is attracted to other women, but could be any man calling himself a lesbian. Biological men—mostly those without any reassignment surgery—label themselves as lesbian, but they are simply men attracted to women, so straight men. Yet the lesbians are the “bigots” and “transphobes” if they dare to point that out.

This also plays out daily in the political sphere. Many activists in political parties and politicians, and some political leaders themselves, are wedded firmly to this nonsensical ideology.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech. Does she share my concern that it plays out in the scientific arena as well? The UK Health Security Agency has been collecting data in relation to sexual health infections on the basis of gender rather than sex.

[Rosie Duffield]

Absolutely. Of course, that is the hon. Member’s area of expertise. I know many health professionals who are incredibly frustrated at this simple twisting of facts, which should not be done at all in the NHS. I thank her for pointing that out.

With a few admirable exceptions, many Members of Parliament are unable to identify or define a woman. They reject that women’s spaces must be exclusively for biological women and have decided that those of us intent on the Equality Act being upheld are evil incarnate.

For centuries, women have had to fight for our rights. We have had to fight male threats of violence and male acts of violence. We are used to having to protect ourselves and our spaces. The very least we should expect from our own Government is the leadership and conviction to back those rights with basic and fundamental legislation. The Labour Government did that in 2010, yet here we are, 16 years later, having to force the current Government to uphold and enforce the law, and make it crystal clear to the NHS, sporting bodies, membership organisations and Government Departments that the law must be followed and adhered to—that is their job.

While the Secretary of State says that her Government have

“always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”,

men who choose to identify as women are still permitted to receive care on women’s hospital wards, access women’s toilets—including in this building—compete in the women’s category in parkrun and take women’s places in grassroots sports, and there are still men in women’s prisons. Actions speak louder than words. The law is the law, so what exactly are the Government waiting for, and why are they incapable of showing even the most basic leadership?

The Supreme Court has been clear, and trans-identifying people remain protected in law under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. None of their protections or rights have been taken away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Duffield]

That is exactly right. We are not talking about gender identity. We are talking about the law as it adheres to biological men and women.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rosie Duffield]

For the very last time.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Lady has talked about the courage of the people who stood up on this issue, but will she reflect on the people who felt censored? For example, I spoke to a young lady in my constituency who participated in a hockey club, but she stopped going. The parents of another girl stopped her going to the same club, because there was a man on the young ladies’ hockey team who insisted on using the changing room and the girls felt uncomfortable changing in front of him. The issue is reducing the participation of particularly young women in sport, which is regrettable. Guidance from the Government to make things clear will help to ensure that women can participate in sport fairly and safely.

[Rosie Duffield]

The hon. Member makes a good point. MPs on my side of the argument will certainly hear that time and time again from parents. There is a group called the Bayswater group whose members have gone through the problems and difficulties of their children wanting to transition from a very early age, with all the categories of sport that they should or should not go into. Guidance would really help those parents, but certainly girls should not feel that they should not participate.

All women on this side of the argument have felt intimidated at some point, not just by the death threats—those are passé by now—but by the signs and the balaclavas outside, and by the rubbish about it coming from both sides. I have lived this for nearly a decade; it is not both sides. It would be lovely to end all the intimidation. I have been in the Labour party for a long time, and, sadly, there are women now in government who have always been on my side in secret gender-critical groups but do not have the courage to speak up when in government. That is a drastic lack of leadership and lack of courage. I feel very sorry for them.

I say to the Government that women are watching and men are watching. Women will be voting at the local elections, and most people in this country are women. The Government have a problem. Their problem is not that the Supreme Court ruling is too complicated to understand or implement, but that it is too clear for people to continue to misrepresent our activists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Whenever the hon. Lady refers to me as being “interesting”, I think that says that she and I have a different opinion on an issue. The Scottish courts have taken that legal decision. I am sure that the hon. Lady would always want to support the legal decisions in the land, whatever they may be and whether she likes them or not.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would reflect that there is a biological difference between an individual with a disorder of sexual differentiation, whom the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) referred to as an intersex individual, and a biological male who feels that he prefers and is more comfortable living his life as though he were a woman.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her clear message. She reiterates the position that I and many others in the Chamber hold.

Back home in Northern Ireland, Democratic Unionist party Ministers have appropriately taken decisive action, because the safety of our daughters—in my case, my granddaughters—in school changing rooms and the integrity of women’s sports cannot be put on hold. In the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, Minister Paul Givan—my colleague—has moved to scrap flawed, ideologically-driven guidance that ignores the legal opinion and pushes something completely out of order and wrong. The majority of people are convinced of that. We are ensuring that schools remain places of common sense, where toilets and sports are defined by biological sex. We will not allow a culture where teachers or pupils are forced to speak untruths or where biological males are permitted into female-only spaces.

It is deeply disappointing to see some, including the Equality Commission, trying to use the Windsor framework or complex legal roadblocks to delay the inevitable. Let us be clear: there is no Northern Ireland exception to biological reality. To suggest that a woman in Belfast is defined differently from a woman in Glasgow or London is not only absurd; it is legally incoherent. I remind everyone of the Glasgow legal opinion, which was very clear. If we are all adhering to the law of the land—I do not think that anybody in the Chamber would not want to support the law of the land—then we can all agree on that.

We are not interested in expensive court cases that seek to overcomplicate the obvious, as some would perhaps try to do. We are interested in protecting the hard-won rights of women and girls. We are interested in ensuring that, when a service is advertised as single sex, it means exactly that and nothing else, as the legal decision in Scotland indicated. We have the legislation in place. We need adherence now, and we look to the Minister to demand this of every publicly funded body. This is about dignity, privacy and, above all, the truth. The DUP, my party, will continue to lead from the front, ensuring that our laws and services reflect the common-sense values of the people we represent. The Government must follow suit as a matter of urgency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I am not a medical doctor—there are experts in this room—but if somebody has gone through operations under the NHS and that is medically assessed and professionally delivered, I respect their current biological status. If I have used the wrong language, I apologise, but these are special cases. The case that the hon. Member mentioned earlier in an intervention, where somebody had had breast cancer and had a double mastectomy, and may be misidentified as male, is a special case; that person has gone through a physical change that may make others see something different from who they are. Those are separate arguments to biological males identifying as women.

As I was saying, none of these transgender constituents of mine has come to me and said, “I want to be entering single-sex spaces of the other gender to make me feel that I am who I believe that I am.” I think that needs to be understood—that this view is not universal across the transgender community.

Clarity in the law is profoundly important. Without it, public bodies, service providers and indeed individuals are left navigating uncertainty. Inconsistent interpretations risk undermining both compliance with and confidence in our legal system, to distressing effect. Rights that already exist in law for any gender, biological sex, man or woman, cannot be usurped by new demands from people in our community, whether it is trans, or Muslims, or Christians, or people of no faith. Rights, once they are acquired and in law, should be protected and implemented, and any new demands or changes required to support in full other members of the community who may differ must be grappled with and dealt with by the Government without undermining existing rights.

The Court’s judgment provides a clear, coherent framework within which decisions can be made, particularly in relation to single-sex services, which the Equality Act explicitly permits. Yet this judgment did not remove rights from trans people. Protections preventing discrimination remain firmly in place, as they should. Trans rights are human rights where they are not impinging on somebody else’s human rights. That is a really clear distinction that we need to make.

This is not a zero-sum question of one group’s rights being set against another’s, with gains for one group coming only at the expense, or at the loss, of the rights of another. Rather, it is about ensuring that the law is applied as intended, recognising distinct protected characteristics and giving effect to each in a way that is workable and, crucially, fair. Of course, implementation must be done sensitively and responsibly, taking pains to ensure that the human rights and dignity of all are respected. The law already allows for flexibility to accommodate this.

It is therefore really difficult to understand why the public sector, especially the NHS, is spending hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of pounds on going to tribunals, knowing that it will lose, for an ideological, entrenched reason. That should not be happening. That money should be spent treating women, trans women, trans men and other patients within the NHS. I pay tribute to the Darlington nurses and Jennifer Melle for being here, and for being the light, or the source of information, around this topic, having gone through so much suffering and persecution to stand up for their basic human rights as biological females.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Member is talking about the way care is managed within the NHS. Has he thought about the importance of ensuring that the biological sex of trans women and trans men is known by the clinician who is treating them? If they are on a ward, there will be a presumption that they are the same sex as the other people on the ward, which could leave them in a difficult position medically. If they receive a blood test result, perhaps for haemoglobin, the results will be interpreted based on the sex that the clinician understands the person to be, which could lead to an error if that is not the patient’s actual sex. When a patient is invited for screening, they need to be invited for the right type of screening and not the wrong type of screening, for their own safety. When statistics are produced that help with epidemiology and further healthcare, they also need to be done in an accurate way.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I thank the hon. Member for her expertise in this area. Recognising biological sex is in the interests of trans people as well. We are not just different on the outside; we are different on the inside. Hospitals need to be able to treat people for who they are, not who they believe they are or who they want to be. We could end up with mistreatment, misdiagnoses and further litigation against the NHS for causing harm to somebody because we did not explicitly take into account their biological sex.

The law already allows flexibility to accommodate the implementation of human rights for all. It permits the provision of single-sex services where justified, while also enabling appropriate alternative arrangements, such as unisex facilities, where these are needed to ensure that everyone is treated with respect. However, the clarity in principle that the ruling provides must now be matched by clarity in practice.

We are now seeing movement from organisations. The International Olympic Committee recently announced that it will not allow non-biological women to compete in women’s sport. Girlguiding has now updated its guidance to go back to admitting guides based on biological sex. That is not discrimination against trans people; it is just common sense, and the protection and implementation of existing rights for girls and women.

In that spirit, I ask the Minister three specific questions. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that public bodies and service providers are not delaying implementation of the judgment under the mistaken belief that they must wait for further guidance before acting? The Supreme Court ruling was black and white, and gave all employers, the public sector and sporting bodies enough information to proceed with implementing it.

Secondly, how do the Government intend to support service providers in striking the balance between single-sex and unisex services in practice, particularly in frontline settings such as healthcare, education and local authority services, where the consequences of uncertainty are often felt most acutely? Finally, can the Minister set out how the Government intend to communicate clearly with the public about what the judgment means in practice, so that both women and trans people understand their rights and protections under the law?

As legislators, we have a special responsibility to ensure that the law remains coherent and relevant to the world we live in. One year on, I hope that the message is clear. The law has been clarified. The rights of women to access single-sex services are justified and recognised. The protections afforded to trans people remain in place, and the responsibility now lies with all of us—whether that be the Government, public bodies, parliamentarians, employers, sporting bodies or any other group—to ensure that this clarity is translated into consistent, lawful practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marie Goldman]

That is exactly why we need the Government to come forward with proper guidance—so that organisations can work through this properly and understand when they are working within the rules, and so that they do not have to reinvent everything for themselves. We do not have that guidance, and it is desperately needed.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Could the hon. Lady say what her ideal situation would be? Would it be that if a gentleman walked into the ladies’ changing rooms, perhaps at a swimming pool, it would be illegal to stop them or even ask them? Would the solution be that any man could go into any women’s changing room if he wished?

[Marie Goldman]

I struggle with the idea that a trans person would go into the opposite sex’s changing rooms, which they are supposedly not allowed into, for the purpose of causing harm. That is surely what we are worrying about: harm being caused, particularly to women. I struggle with the idea that, at the moment, it is the sign on the door that is preventing someone from causing harm to women. Do they go, “Oh, I wanted to harm a woman, but I’m not going to do it because the sign on the door says I shouldn’t”? I struggle with that argument in general.

It should not need to be spelled out in Britain in 2026, but requiring women and girls to prove that we are female enough—because we have to do the same thing—is not only a deeply regressive step and an impractical requirement to put on businesses and other organisations, but deeply discriminatory, judgmental and, speaking as a woman, outrageous and unworkable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey]

I can confirm that all Government Departments are currently ensuring they comply with the law.

The third question that the hon. Member for Upper Bann asked me was on the NHS. Issuing guidance before the EHRC code of practice is published presents a very real risk that guidance may be inconsistent; I am happy to keep her up to date with progress on that matter.

The right hon. Member for East Surrey and others welcomed visitors in the Public Gallery today. I welcome them too, and want to say clearly that everybody should be safe and respected at work. That includes women’s voices, rights and spaces being respected. I think the right hon. Lady was wrong to say that that has not been a priority for the Government—we have been working tirelessly on giving it the due care and attention it needs—and I think she is wrong to say that we are not determined to uphold the law, as I have hopefully just clarified.

I will also clarify that this Government are committed to the rights of women. The last Conservative Government had a terrible record from on women’s rights: victims of rape and sexual assault waiting for years for justice, women waiting years for diagnosis and care in the NHS, women at work suffering stubbornly high gender pay gaps and the Leader of the Opposition even saying that maternity pay had gone too far. This Government are delivering for women and girls. We are halving violence against women and girls in a decade, strengthening women’s rights at work and delivering a new women’s health strategy and cutting waiting lists. We are committed to protecting single-sex spaces and implementing the Supreme Court ruling, which I will come on to discuss.

Debates such as this are important because, in a conversation that is so often deeply polarised we must find ways to work together to move forward. We need more cool heads and constructive contributions, so that we can ensure the vulnerable groups at the heart of this debate—for example, women who have experienced violence and the trans community—are always treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Today my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities has tabled a written ministerial statement on progress with assessing the EHRC’s code of practice for services, public functions and associations. That follows the statement issued by the EHRC in which it explained that it has updated the code of practice and shared that with the Government this week. While we are unable to make further comment at this time due to strict pre-election rules, hon. Members should please be assured that we will take urgent action, with the intention of laying the code in May, as soon as practicable after the election period.

I also want to emphasise the importance of getting this code of practice right. It would be catastrophic for single-sex services to follow guidance that was not robust and then be placed in legal jeopardy again. That is why it is vital that we have taken the time needed to consider the code in full. When we lay the code, we will follow the process as set out in the Equality Act: namely, if the code is approved by the Minister, it will be laid before Parliament. If neither House disapproves the draft within a 40-day period, the Minister will then bring the code into force via a commencement order.

Beyond the process of the code itself, I have heard in today’s debate that some Members are concerned about what the Government have been doing to implement the Supreme Court ruling while the code is being considered. I reassure Members that since the judgment was received, the Government have been crystal clear that we expect duty bearers to follow the clarity provided by the judgment and to seek specialist legal advice where necessary.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Will the hon. Member give way?