Five key takeaways from Supreme Court ruling

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman should be based on biological sex. So as the dust settles on the ruling, what can we take away from it? Firstly, it provides much greater clarity than many expected. The judges ruled that when the term "woman" is used in the Equality Act it means a biological woman, and "sex" means biological sex. It also makes it clear that if a space or service is designated as women-only, a person who was born male but identifies as a woman does not have a right to use that space or service. The Supreme Court justices argued this was the only consistent, coherent interpretation. Many public bodies will now be reviewing their gender policies, but how much day-to-day change we'll see is going to take time to find out. There is already Equality Act guidance which allows for women-only spaces, such as toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards in certain circumstances. It says this could be for "reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety." So, where organisations want and where appropriate, they can already point to this to justify single-sex spaces. However, cases like that of the nurse, Sandie Peggie, who wassuspended after refusing to share a changing room with a transgender doctor, are likely to be reviewed. On Wednesday NHS Fife, the health board involved in the case, told the BBC it noted the clarity provided by the ruling and would "carefully consider the judgment." In sports, there have been particularly heated arguments over whether or not trans women should compete in women's categories. And in recent years, many sports have tightened up rules around transgender athletes at the elite levels. Athletics, cycling and aquatics, for example, have banned transgender women from taking part in women's events. Other sports have put in place eligibility criteria. Earlier this month the English Football Association introduced stricter rules, but still allowed transgender women to continue to compete in the women's game as long as their testosterone was kept below a certain level. Again, Wednesday's ruling's straightforward statement that a woman is a biological woman provides a much clearer framework for those debates, and could see rules changed in various sports as a result. The Supreme Court justices emphasised that transgender people already have protections against discrimination and harassment written into the Equality Act. The arguments in court centred on whether trans women with gender recognition certificates (GRC) should be treated as women by the Equality Act. The Scottish government had argued that sex can be legally changed via the gender recognition process, and a transgender person with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) should have the protections of that sex. Campaign group, For Women Scotland, argued that these protections should only apply to people that are born female. Relatively few trans people have GRCs and the judgment concluded if they were treated differently to those who do not have certificates, it would create an unworkable two-tier system of protections for the group. Some people in the transgender community now worry GRCs have lost their legal weight and will only serve a symbolic purpose from now on. Trans rights campaigners have said they will be examining the judgment closely to decide on their next steps. It is possible they could attempt to put pressure on the government to change the Equality Act. The Scottish government has also said it will need to work with the UK government to understand the full implications of the ruling. So, while the judgment provides clarity on the law, the jury is still out on its practical impact.