What the Supreme Court’s Ruling on ‘Sex’ Means for Schools

UPDATE: This article was originally published on 17 April. Following feedback and online discussion, we have updated the text to provide further clarification in response to concerns about specific wording. As part of our apolitical stance, Edapt does not take a position on whether the Supreme Court’s ruling is right or wrong. Our role is to support school staff by helping them understand what is a complex and evolving area of law, and to offer guidance on how it may apply in their professional context, particularly where duties intersect and safeguarding considerations arise. We are not prescribing what schools should do. Instead, we aim to provide clear, practical support rooted in the law as it currently stands, to help teachers and school leaders make informed decisions. We recognise that some of the criticism reflects legitimate concern about safeguarding, clarity, and the need to protect the integrity of single-sex provision. We agree that biological sex now has clear legal meaning, that single-sex spaces must be properly maintained, and that any inclusion must meet a high legal threshold. Our guidance aims to help schools think about those responsibilities lawfully and fairly, while avoiding unlawful discrimination.

A brief explanation of the ruling

On 16 April 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, clarifying that the term “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not the legal gender recorded on a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This ruling settles years of legal ambiguity about whether individuals with a GRC, whose legal sex differs from their biological sex, should be treated as having changed sex under equality law.

The case itself related to the definition of “woman” in Scottish public sector board appointments, but the implications extend across England, Scotland and Wales, including to schools, which are bound by the Equality Act.

In the UK, an individual can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) at the age of 18 or over. Since children under 18 cannot obtain a GRC, the ruling applies directly and fully to almost all pupils in schools, as their legal sex and biological sex are always the same in law. This means that: 

There is no legal ambiguity about their sex under the Equality Act. A pupil’s sex in law is their biological sex at birth, regardless of how they identify. Even if a child socially transitions or intends to apply for a GRC in future, this has no effect on how the law recognises their sex.

How the ruling is being interpreted

The Supreme Court’s ruling has prompted a range of responses from across the education and legal landscape.

Some have argued that the ruling now requires schools to exclude all trans pupils from single-sex spaces and services, and that any inclusion would breach the School Premises Regulations. This interpretation holds that single-sex provision can only be upheld by categorically excluding those of the opposite biological sex in every circumstance.

Others have taken a contrasting view, that the ruling should not affect inclusive practices at all, and that trans pupils should always be permitted to access the spaces and activities that align with their gender identity. This position tends to see exclusion of trans pupils as inherently discriminatory or harmful, and views the Equality Act’s protection for gender reassignment as a primary consideration in all cases.

Edapt’s guidance sits between these perspectives. It reflects the legal framework as it currently stands, which permits schools to make decisions based on biological sex, but also requires that any exclusion of a trans pupil must be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Our goal is to help schools apply the law thoughtfully and with care, recognising the legal responsibilities, practical realities, and sensitivities that school leaders face. That said, our message is clear that further guidance from the Department for Education is sorely needed.

A rebalancing of inclusion

The Court’s decision introduces a key shift: schools and other public institutions may now lawfully differentiate between pupils and staff on the basis of biological sex when it comes to single-sex spaces, sports, and activities. This rebalances the previously dominant emphasis on gender identity and reaffirms the rights of girls and boys, as biological categories, under the law.

Transgender pupils are still protected under the characteristic of gender reassignment, and must not be harassed or unfairly excluded. But schools no longer need to stretch or reinterpret the meaning of “sex” to be inclusive. They now have the legal space to make proportionate, lawful decisions that reflect their community context, facilities, and safeguarding needs.

Importantly, the Equality Act continues to apply alongside this ruling. Where a school considers excluding a pupil with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from a single sex space or activity, the law requires this to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim such as protecting the privacy or dignity of others. This legal test applies to each instance of exclusion, not only to the initial designation of the space.

While the Supreme Court ruling gives schools greater legal certainty to make decisions based on biological sex, it does not impose an automatic requirement to exclude trans pupils from single-sex spaces or activities in every circumstance. Where a trans pupil is considered for inclusion in such a space, the school must be able to demonstrate that any decision, whether to permit or exclude, is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as ensuring privacy, dignity, or safeguarding.

Schools are required under the Premises Regulations to provide single-sex facilities for boys and girls over the age of 8. Once provided, these spaces are considered single-sex in legal terms and may be restricted to pupils of the same biological sex. However, under the Equality Act, any decision to exclude a pupil with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment must still be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The law gives schools the ability to restrict access where needed, but does not mandate blanket or automatic exclusion. Schools can lawfully exclude trans pupils from single-sex spaces where doing so is justified, but the ruling does not require schools to do so in every case. Nor does it mean schools are universally permitted to include trans pupils in all circumstances either,  This is a subtle yet important difference. The law does not prevent a school from permitting access in exceptional cases. However, the legal threshold is high, and any such inclusion must be clearly justified, transparently handled, and should never undermine the school’s duty to provide appropriate single-sex provision.

How will this practically impact schools?

There are a number of ways that this is likely to impact how schools will operate. Including the following:

1. Toilets and changing rooms: Schools are legally required to provide separate toilet and washing facilities for boys and girls over the age of 8 under the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012. These facilities are designated for use by pupils of the same biological sex. Where a school considers allowing a trans pupil access to a facility designated for the opposite sex, this should be approached carefully and only where it can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim under the Equality Act 2010. In such cases, schools must be transparent about how the space is being used and should not describe it as exclusively single-sex if that use is permitted. Any decision should be made on a case by case basis, clearly documented, and sensitive to the rights and dignity of all pupils.

2. Competitive sport: Girls’ and boys’ teams may be separated by biological sex, particularly in contact or performance-based sports.

3. Positive action programmes: Initiatives designed to promote gender equality (e.g. STEM clubs for girls) must be based on biological sex.

4. Admissions policies (especially in single-sex schools): The ruling confirms that these may lawfully use biological sex as the basis for entry

5. Staff decisions: Roles involving intimate care or safeguarding (e.g. boarding houses) may now be lawfully designated by sex-at-birth.

Do trans pupils have to now be excluded from single sex spaces or activities?

No. A crucial point is that this ruling does not require schools to exclude trans pupils from spaces or activities that align with their gender identity. However, it does confirm that schools may do so lawfully, where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as ensuring privacy, dignity, or safety. This is an important distinction.

Inclusion remains a vital principle that schools will naturally lean into but the legal position has shifted. Inclusion is now something that can be balanced, rather than a requirement that overrides other considerations.

What practical steps should schools be taking now?

First of all, don’t rush anything! These are not simple decisions and if anything the ruling highlights the importance of considered and documented reasoning. That said schools are likely going to have to:

1. Review and update policies: Behaviour, uniform, equality, safeguarding, sport, and facilities policies should reflect the biological definition of sex.
2. Train staff: Ensure all staff understand the protected characteristics of “sex” and “gender reassignment”, and how they interact.
3. Document decisions: Particularly in sensitive cases, record the rationale, legal basis, and any safeguarding considerations.
4. Update pastoral support plans: Tailor arrangements for trans pupils with dignity and discretion.
5. Engage governors and parents (where appropriate): Prepare consistent messaging that focuses on fairness, safety, and respect for all.

Decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis

The ruling does not remove nuance. Schools must continue to weigh each situation based on a number of factors including:

• The age and maturity of pupils involved
• The specific facilities available
• Safeguarding or privacy concerns
• Whether any exclusion is the least discriminatory option available
  

This does not mean schools are expected to redefine single sex provision or abandon safeguarding. Rather, the Equality Act requires that any exclusion of a pupil with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment must be justified individually. Schools must balance all relevant factors including the needs of other pupils, safeguarding, and the school’s own ethos and should avoid blanket or default approaches that could constitute unlawful discrimination.

A one size fits all policy is unlikely to be legally or practically sound. Thoughtfulness remains critical and it is likely that schools will need to be flexible in how they approach each individual situation.

Unresolved issues and ongoing challenges

Whilst the ruling does provide some clarity to schools, there are number of issues that still remain unresolved and the practical implementation of the law will still be challenging. For example, in the case of facilities, many schools lack enough space for private or alternative changing and toilet provision.Some schools, especially those with strong inclusive or faith-based values, may struggle to reconcile legal clarity with community expectations. Without centralised guidance, schools risk inconsistency, complaints, or legal challenge.

This is why we think it is sensible for the DfE to consider issuing national guidance that:

• Clarifies how the ruling applies to the school context
• Offers practical models for balancing rights
• Addresses unresolved questions (e.g. safeguarding and parental objections)

Otherwise, there is a real risk that individual schools will spend an inordinate amount of time and resource navigating legal complexity that is a stretch for most equalities lawyers, let alone school leaders.

Some practical case study applications of the ruling:

Case Study 1: A trans pupil and changing room access

Scenario: Chloe is a Year 10 pupil, assigned male at birth but living as a girl since Year 8. Her parents request she be allowed to use the girls’ changing room for PE.

School’s response: The school considers the request and determines that allowing access to the girls’ changing room may cause discomfort or distress to other pupils. They offer Chloe a private cubicle near the PE office, explaining that this strikes the best balance between dignity and privacy for all. The decision is documented and reviewed termly.

Legal position: The exclusion is lawful as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim i.e. the privacy and dignity of others.

Case Study 2: A trans boy in competitive sport

Scenario: Max is a trans boy (biological female) in Year 11 who wants to compete in the boys’ rugby team.

School’s response: The school consults medical advice, considers the physical nature of contact sport, and determines that Max may not safely compete. Instead, they support him to continue training and offer a mentoring role within the team.

Legal position: Exclusion is lawful under Section 195 of the Equality Act (gender-affected activities) for reasons of safety.

Case Study 3: A staff member with a GRC

Scenario: Ms Taylor, a trans woman with a GRC, applies for a job in a girls’ boarding house. The role includes overnight safeguarding duties.

School’s response: The school considers the duties, the privacy implications, and consults legal advice. They conclude that the post constitutes a genuine occupational requirement for a biological female, and do not appoint Ms Taylor. She is offered an alternative pastoral role.

Legal position: This is potentially lawful under Schedule 9 of the Equality Act, provided the school can justify the requirement as proportionate and necessary.

Conclusion

This ruling marks a new phase for schools one in which biological sex has legal weight, but in which inclusion and individual support remain vital. Schools now have the law behind them to make balanced, case-specific decisions that serve the best interests of all pupils.

What’s needed now is clarity from the Department for Education, so that every school regardless of size, ethos or context can apply the law with confidence, compassion, and consistency.