Questions over validity of Supreme Court gender ruling ‘unacceptable’ – Mahmood
Giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Shabana Mahmood said that justices at the UK’s highest court had ‘done their job’.
The Justice Secretary has said it is “absolutely unacceptable” to question the validity of the Supreme Court ruling that the term “woman” is defined by biological sex.
Giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Shabana Mahmood said that justices at the UK’s highest court had “done their job”.
Earlier this month, top judges unanimously ruled the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
This means, as the equalities watchdog stated, 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, who are biologically male but identify as women, can be excluded from women-only spaces like toilets and changing rooms.
Ms Mahmood told MPs and peers: “They obviously provided the legal clarity in their legal decision, which is exactly their job.
“I think it’s disappointing since then that some individuals have sought to question the validity of the Supreme Court or cast aspersions, which is absolutely unacceptable.
“I think they’ve done their job and I think they’ve sought to do it in a way that recognises that we’re talking about a balance of rights, but sought to give confidence to a minority community that they still have protections.”
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published interim guidance on Friday which said trans women “should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities” in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals.
The same applies to trans men, who are biologically female, using men’s toilets.
But the watchdog also said that trans people “should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use”.
The watchdog is working on a more detailed code of practice after the Supreme Court ruling, which it said it aims to provide to the Government for ministerial approval by June.
Some trans rights groups have raised concerns about the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling.
Trans advocacy group TransActual has written to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer asking what “practical effect” gender recognition certificates have now, while LGBT charity Stonewall said there is “deep concern” about the consequences of the judgment which is “incredibly worrying for the trans community”.
The UK’s only judge to publicly say they are transgender, Dr Victoria McCloud, is planning to take the Government to the European Court of Human Rights over the ruling, according to the BBC.
The Mail on Sunday also reported that ministers Sir Chris Bryant and Dame Angela Eagle were part of a WhatsApp group expressing concerns about the impact of the ruling and the EHRC’s initial response.
Asked by the parliamentary committee about transgender prisoners, Ms Mahmood said the Government’s policy “strikes the right balance”, adding that the “vast majority” of transgender women inmates are currently held in men’s prisons.
Latest prison service data for 2023/24 shows there were 295 transgender prisoners in England and Wales, 51 in female prisons and 244 in male prisons.
Policy changes that came into force in February 2023 have also meant transgender women who are sentenced to custody cannot be held in the women’s estate if they retain male genitalia, or have been convicted of a violent or sexual offence, unless in the most exceptional cases.
There is one transgender prisoner unit in the prison estate, at HMP Downview, in Sutton, Surrey, which is designed to hold trans women deemed to be too high risk to be accommodated in women’s prisons, but also at risk from other inmates in male jails.
“No trans women convicted of a rape or serious violence offence who retains birth genitalia would ever be considered for being placed in the women’s estate,” Ms Mahmood told the committee.
“I haven’t moved any trans prisoners into the women’s estate since I’ve been in office.
“We will obviously now go back and with the clarity from the Supreme Court just make sure that that policy still stands to scrutiny or whether we need to make any changes.
“We have a responsibility to female prisoners in the female estate to make sure that we can keep them safe.
“We also have responsibilities to trans prisoners, trans men as well as trans women, to keep them safe too. I think our current policy strikes the right balance.”
