{"id":13204,"date":"2025-05-15T09:00:12","date_gmt":"2025-05-15T09:00:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.fitpro.com\/blog\/?p=13204"},"modified":"2025-05-15T09:00:12","modified_gmt":"2025-05-15T09:00:12","slug":"what-gyms-need-to-consider-for-trans-people","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fitpro.com\/blog\/what-gyms-need-to-consider-for-trans-people\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court ruling: What gyms need to consider for trans people, biological women and inclusion"},"content":{"rendered":"

Gemma Telford<\/strong> explains what gyms need to consider for trans people, biological women and inclusion following the recent Supreme Court ruling.<\/h2>\n

There\u2019s been a lot of coverage in the last couple of weeks about the recent Supreme Court ruling, delivered on 16th<\/sup> April 2025, and what it means for trans women and biological women.\u00a0The Supreme Court ruling was meant to address a very narrow use case and was brought to court by For Women Scotland \u2013 a group that believes \u2018there are only two sexes, that a person\u2019s sex is not a choice, nor can it be changed\u2019 and is supported by, among others, JK Rowling. In this blog, I\u2019m going to talk about why I think that\u2019s wrong, what\u2019s going on with the ruling and what we can all do about it, including you if you use or own a gym.<\/p>\n

What was the original problem?<\/strong><\/h4>\n

This bit is a bit heavy, so bear with me. However, it\u2019s important to understand just how detailed and nuanced the whole case is and how it hangs on a very specific definition in a very specific set of circumstances.<\/p>\n

The ruling looked at the definition of sex in the Equalities Act 2010 and the guidance issued by the Scottish Government in 2022, through the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which changed the process to get a Gender Recognition certificate, as set out in the Gender Recognition Act 2004.1<\/sup> The 2022 Bill determined who could apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (a GRC) and legally recognised that a person\u2019s gender is not the gender they were assigned at birth but is their \u2018acquired gender\u2019, which is what For Women Scotland objected to. The 2022 Bill in Scotland has been blocked by the UK Parliament.<\/p>\n

Essentially, the Equalities Act referred to sex as being male or female and was generally understood to refer to biological sex at birth. However, it did not explicitly incorporate transgender identities within the definition of \u2018woman\u2019 or \u2018man\u2019. What it did do was include those who had been through \u2018gender reassignment\u2019 as a separate protected characteristic. \u2018Sex\u2019 was also a protected characteristic. It did allow for \u2018single sex services or spaces\u2019 to permit the exclusion of transgender individuals if it was a \u2018proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim\u2019 \u2013 but the proportionate piece was left open to interpretation.<\/p>\n

This meant there was legal ambiguity over whether a transgender woman (even with a GRC) counted as a \u2018woman\u2019 in all circumstances. The Supreme Court ruling clarified that in the context of single-sex exemptions, the term \u2018woman\u2019 only applied to biological females, not those with a GRC.* This leads to a problem where trans women with a GRC are legally recognised as women in one legal ruling, and now not in another. It’s very hard to reconcile!<\/p>\n

So, what does all that actually mean? <\/strong><\/h4>\n

It meant that under the Equalities Act 2010, service providers and single-sex spaces could include trans women (and trans men, but For Women Scotland are only interested in trans women). It also meant that they could be excluded in very specific scenarios, if it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and only then.<\/p>\n

Why does it all matter?<\/strong><\/h4>\n

With the ruling, a lot of confusion has been created about where trans people can now have access. If an organisation provides \u2018single-sex\u2019 spaces, allowing trans people into them now could void this status. However, remember there are very few situations where it is actually necessary to exclude trans people. Most trans people have been using the toilets and changing rooms that match their gender identity for years.<\/p>\n

The main reason this ruling matters is because it makes trans people feel under attack and unsafe. It\u2019s hard for me to stay neutral about this, because I have a trans son, and I\u2019ve seen the devastating impact of this judgement on him and how he feels about his validity over the last couple of weeks, especially as some organisations have now banned trans women from women\u2019s spaces and sports altogether.<\/p>\n

If trans people become forced to use the toilets and changing rooms of their biological sex, then this means not just that trans women will be barred from women\u2019s toilets \u2013 but that they should use the men\u2019s. And the other side of the equation is that trans men would use the women\u2019s toilets. What this actually means in practice is that trans men, whether with a GRC or not, could now be forced into women\u2019s spaces. This means trans men, who look like men \u2013 sometimes with beards, muscles and all the rest \u2013 could now be in women\u2019s spaces. Personally, I fail to see how this makes women in those spaces feel safer.<\/p>\n

The argument that groups like For Women Scotland use is that trans women, who could prey on \u2018biological\u2019 women, are now not allowed into women\u2019s spaces, which will improve their safety. Yet what this ruling has done is to potentially force trans men into those spaces instead. If I was a predatory man, I know which scenario makes life easier for me. (It\u2019s worth reminding people here that trans men don\u2019t want to be in women\u2019s toilets \u2013 because trans men are men!)<\/p>\n

It’s not just trans people <\/strong><\/h4>\n

All of this confusion and conflict has centred around biological sex and transgender people who have moved from their gender assigned at birth to a different gender. However, it ignores non-binary people and also intersex people. Yet their difficulties are just as important, and potentially more widespread. In the last census, only around 0.5% of people in the UK identified themselves as transgender.2 <\/sup>It\u2019s a tiny amount of people. However, around 1.7% of the global population may be classified as Intersex.3, 4<\/sup><\/p>\n

For obvious reasons, non-binary people don\u2019t classify themselves as male or female, so it\u2019s extremely hard to know how this legislation affects them. Intersex people are living proof that sex isn\u2019t the binary male or female that groups like For Women Scotland argue it is. There are several different types of intersex people \u2013 those with chromosomal variations such as Klinefelter Syndrome (who have XXY chromosomes), Turner Syndrome (XO) and other variations, all of which affects development in different ways.<\/p>\n

There are people with hormonal or gonadal variations such as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome or Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. These may result in differences in genitalia. There are gonadal differences, mosaicism and chimerism. These conditions may mean that people affected have one type of chromosome and a different type of genitals, differences in appearance and the presence or absence of gonads and sex organs which might be different again from their chromosomes.<\/p>\n

None of which is straightforward and none of which is binary. Although the debate has centred around trans people, this group of people is just as important and, like trans people themselves, has been absent in any debate. (The Supreme Court did not take into account the testimony of trans people when making its ruling.)<\/p>\n

If you run a gym, what do you need to do?<\/strong><\/h4>\n

There is some difficulty here because, despite the ruling, it\u2019s still ambiguous. Forcing trans people to use separate facilities could breach their legal right to privacy, but this is as yet untested. Making trans people use disabled facilities creates additional barriers for disabled people and risks breaching inclusion principles.<\/p>\n

Some guidance, offered by Trans in the City, can be found here: https:\/\/www.transinthecity.co.uk\/infographics<\/a><\/p>\n

Trans in the City makes the following recommendations:<\/p>\n