Starmer ignoring Supreme Court ruling on single sex spaces to suit his ideology
Quick to quote that a non binding decision on Chagos must be adhered to, he now ignores the Supreme Court legal clarification to protect women's spaces because it's against his ideology.
In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling that should have been a game changer for women’s rights. The highest court in the land unanimously declared that, under the Equality Act 2010, the terms “woman” and “sex” refer to biological sex, not legal gender as changed by a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
This decision came after years of legal battles led by the campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS). It was a clear win for those arguing that single sex spaces, services, and protections must be based on biology to ensure privacy, safety, and dignity for women and girls.
Yet, months later many are asking why hasn’t this ruling been fully implemented? After all Starmer as a Human Rights lawyer who got off some of the worst criminals on the planet, loves the law, keeps saying we must adhere to the decisions of the court but for some reason he is not doing it this time.
Women’s rights advocates, including FWS, claim the government is deliberately blocking or delaying the changes needed to put the law into practice. Policies in areas like schools, prisons, hospitals, and public services still seem to ignore the court’s clarity, leaving women vulnerable.
The case originated from a 2018 Scottish law aimed at improving gender representation on public boards, which included transgender women (with or without a GRC) in the definition of “woman.” For Women Scotland challenged this, arguing it diluted sex-based protections under the UK wide Equality Act.
After mixed results in Scottish courts including a ruling that “sex” could include those with a GRC, the case reached the Supreme Court. In a resounding judgment, the justices sided with FWS: sex in equality law is biological and immutable. Transgender individuals retain protections against discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, but they do not acquire the sex-based rights of the opposite sex.
Co-founder of FWS, Susan Smith, called it a victory for “common sense,” emphasising that women need single-sex spaces for safety and dignity, especially when vulnerable.
The Promise of Change Is Being Ignored
The ruling opened the door for clearer guidance on single-sex exemptions. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued interim updates, stating that in places like hospitals, refuges, and sports, providers can (and often should) exclude transgender individuals based on biological sex.
Organisations like Girl Guides responded swiftly in December 2025, updating policies to admit only those recorded female at birth as new members, citing the ruling directly.
But in critical public sectors such as prisons, schools and healthcare, campaigners say outdated policies remain “stubbornly in place.” This is deliberate. FWS has even launched further legal action, alleging that rules on transgender pupils and prisoners breach the Supreme Court judgment.
Critics point to political reluctance. The Labour government has promised reforms to the gender recognition process but has been slow to enforce biological sex distinctions across the board. Some see this as an attempt to appease conflicting interests, prioritising transgender rights over women’s.
Real world implications
This isn’t just legal nitpicking. Real world implications include:
Safety in prisons and refuges. Policies allowing transgender women (biological males) into female facilities have raised serious concerns. Remember offenders in this area are devious and will deliberately try to work in refuges to gain access to vulnerable women, as do child sex offenders work where they can gain access to children.
Fairness in sports and spaces. Biological differences matter for competition and privacy.
Clarity for everyone. The ruling protects transgender people from discrimination while preserving sex-based rights.
As Helen Joyce from Sex Matters put it, this is “incredibly important for the half of humanity who need single-sex spaces.”
Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon acknowledged the ruling’s authority but worried about its impact on transgender dignity, a reminder that balance is needed, but not at the expense of ignoring the law.
Stop stalling Starmer and act on the courts decision
The Supreme Court has spoken clearly and biology defines sex in equality law. It’s time for the government both in Westminster and Holyrood to stop the delays and update guidance accordingly.
Women’s rights groups like For Women Scotland deserve credit for their persistence. Their win was hard-fought, and it shouldn’t be undermined by inaction.
(This post is based on the Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling and ongoing developments reported in sources like BBC, The Times and court records.