‘Women’, whisky, and why the UK Supreme Court’s ruling is just so damaging
The UK’s majority-men Supreme Court just decided on the legal definition of ‘woman’. Tl;dr: the outcome is terrible for everyone, most urgently trans women. This is what it means for whisky, and why the ruling sets a dangerous precedent for all of us.
At around 10am on Wednesday morning the UK Supreme Court delivered its verdict on the legal definition of a woman. And it was seismic.
In many ways, the premise is as ridiculous as it sounds. We all have women in our lives. We know what makes someone a woman. The only people even asking the question were a small band of transphobes (bankrolled by Harry Potter author JK Rowling) looking to stir up trouble and make life more difficult for the less than one percent of the population who are trans women. The basis? That this tiny group represents an existential threat to cisgender women – a completely unfounded claim. And one made at a time when one in four women will be the victim of domestic violence in their lifetime and rape convictions have dropped to the lowest levels since records began. If this was actually about women’s safety, this would be where they were putting their focus. But it is not.
As you’ll likely have read by now, the Supreme Court judges (three men and two women, just to be clear) ruled that the definition of a ‘woman’ is solely rooted in biological sex. Trans women, even those with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) – are no longer recognised as women in law. You can read the judgement in full here.
The Court came to this conclusion despite only taking into account evidence from the so-called ‘gender critical’ feminists who brought the case. Experts, including a trans High Court judge, were specifically barred from giving oral or written arguments. Jo Maugham, the executive director at The Good Law Project, described this as “monumentally unfair”, adding that only engaging with one side “made the decision weaker”. He stated: “I am a King’s Counsel and I have an unblemished professional record and I do not say this lightly. The Supreme Court’s decision has made me ashamed of my profession and ashamed of what our law has become.”
What this means for trans and cis women
Clearly, transphobic groups will have been emboldened by this decision. Organisations like Not a Phase have pointed out that transphobic hate crimes in the UK have increased by 186% in the last five years. The ruling is a “tangible example of the discourse fuelling a genuine regression of the rights, protection and freedoms to which trans+ people are entitled.”
Media organisation QueerAF said that the Supreme Court ruling seems to make it legally defensible to exclude trans people from same-sex spaces under any circumstances. A friend who works in law suggested this could be far-fetched, and that he doesn’t see specific legislation being passed explicitly banning trans people from public toilets, for example. Yet trans women are often held in men’s prisons despite the risk this puts them at, and the athletics, cycling and aquatic sporting bodies have already banned trans women athletes.
While the judges claimed that trans people’s rights are not being lessened by the ruling, this is clearly not the case. The Court itself acknowledged that the ruling removes equal pay protection from trans women with GRC certificates. Then there’s the gross concept of passing. If trans women look enough like women – if they’re perceived to be whatever a woman ‘should’ be – they’re protected under law.
Over once again to the Good Law Project for why this is so problematic, and an impossible path to tread. “This reasoning only applies to a small proportion of trans women. If you are ‘out’ as trans you will not be entitled to that protection – and the criminal law now forces people to ‘out’ themselves. If you do not ‘pass’ as a woman you are not entitled to that protection – and gender-affirming healthcare is being withdrawn so fewer and fewer trans people will pass.” What about intersex people – individuals born with sex characteristics that don't fit typical binary definitions of male or female – or cis women who don’t look ‘feminine’ enough? This part of the ruling can affect everyone.
Perhaps most alarmingly, within 24 hours of the Supreme Court ruling the so-called Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said it will “pursue” the NHS if it does not follow the new “single sex” requirements. This comes a week after the health secretary Wes Streeting issued classified NHS Guidelines (obtained by the Good Law Project) that calls on doctors to refuse any treatments, like blood tests, that enable under 18s to continue using gender affirming care. Chillingly, it provides “advice” on how GPs can refuse the same care to trans adults.
And in a point that would seem satirical if it wasn’t so serious, in the same ruling the Supreme Court (majority men, remember), also **legally defined** what a ‘lesbian’ is. In an attempt to speak on behalf of the half-a-million or so of us in the country, it decreed that only AFAB (‘assigned female at birth’) women can be lesbians. If not, the Court argued, it would lead to an "inevitable loss of autonomy and dignity for lesbians”. The real stripping of autonomy? Men – or indeed anyone – imposing on lesbians what their own attraction looks like. As QueerAF rightly notes, the vast majority of lesbians – including myself – reject this.
What’s all this got to do with whisky?
‘Women in whisky’ has become a dominant theme over the last ten years or so. And for good reason. Women were, and in many areas still are, wildly underrepresented in the industry. From blending labs to the boardroom, ad narratives to judging panels, it’s not new news that whisky is a man’s game. Things are slowly changing, and women are – mostly – no longer seen as a novelty (although I was asked ‘do you actually like whisky?’ by an industry veteran on a recent trip to the major producer he works for…).
Like many industries dominated by men, whisky has made significant strides in this area. While they tend to be white and middle class, women can be found in every part of the whisky industry. More women are drinking whisky than ever. This is in part down to a concerted effort from organisations like Our Whisky, Equal Measures and others.
The important question starting to be posed: which women are prominent in whisky? It’s almost always white, middle class cisgender women. I say this as one of them. What about everyone else? What about other marginalised groups?
Many of the organisations who have championed women in whisky have appropriately broadened their mission to include non-binary people, and trans- and other gender-diverse folks. The Women’s+ Whisky Night is one of those, adding the ‘plus’ to intentionally denote that trans, non-binary and other folks are welcome. And yet, when the news broke on Wednesday, the industry as a whole was incredibly slow to respond.
Yes, many of these non-profits are small. Under-resourcing hits responsiveness. And organisations like these do not bear the sole responsibility to advocate for trans women in drinks. But they are part of a trend. And it’s disappointing that such an earth-shattering moment for the most vulnerable in our community was not treated with the urgency it requires. We can’t only be agile when it comes to issues affecting middle class cis women.
I have yet to see any major drinks company release a statement in support of the trans community at this dangerous moment. Diversity, equity and inclusion statements aren’t worth the paper they’re written on if a business can’t or won’t back its staff, suppliers and customers when it matters. And those that adorn rainbow flags during Pride month or have sold products in ‘support’ of the queer community? You can’t just show up for the party. You have an obligation to be bold in support of the trans community. The time to start was yesterday. Get on it.
Eventually, most of the prolific charities and organisations that advocate for gender equality did post or make statements. I approached OurWhisky, Drinklusive, The Ada Coleman Project and Equal Measures for commentary. Two responded:
Kaitlin Wilkes, The Ada Coleman Project co-founder:
“With everything happening in the UK, the US, and around the world – where the rights of trans people and other marginalised communities are being systematically rolled back – our values remain unchanged.
“The Ada Coleman Project is committed to cultivating, empowering and inspiring all women and non-binary people in hospitality, including trans women.
“Because true progress in our industry means creating spaces where everyone feels safe, respected, and welcomed around the world.”
She added that the organisation is working with non-binary people and it is actively engaging with the community to better represent them.
Aidy Smith, Drinklusive founder:
“As the founder of an LGBT+-supporting mentorship programme dedicated to uplifting underrepresented voices in the drinks and hospitality industry, I am deeply concerned by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that defines ‘woman’ under the Equality Act as referring solely to biological sex. While the decision may be framed as a clarification of legal language, its implications reach far deeper, particularly for our transgender colleagues and community members.
“We want to reaffirm to every transgender person that you still have rights under the Equality Act, particularly protections related to gender reassignment. These remain in place and are designed to shield you from discrimination in employment, services, and beyond. For anyone feeling uncertain about what this ruling means for them, we urge you to seek guidance through organisations like Stonewall, TransActual, or Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), who provide excellent resources and legal clarity.
“This ruling may cause hesitation among employers and service providers in industries like ours, which have made meaningful strides towards inclusivity. It is now more important than ever that we double down on our commitment to creating workplaces where trans people feel seen, respected, and safe. The drinks and hospitality industries thrive on diversity – trans voices must be part of the future, not sidelined by fear or legal ambiguity.
Statements are affirming, and they are essential. But what about action?
Right now, the trans community, and trans women in particular, need to be your priority. Full stop. While the Supreme Court ruling has the potential to negatively affect all of us, its trans women bearing the brunt today.
If your business engages with humans – be it internally with staff or suppliers, or retail or hospitality customers – then you will engage with trans people at some point. You have a duty of care to that community. And it’s a community that’s hurting right now.
Make sure that your trans+ employees have the support they need. The Supreme Court ruling has created a great deal of fear and uncertainty. They may well be scared. Consider providing additional assistance if required, like access to counselling or paid leave. And it goes without saying: double down on any transphobic rhetoric. Make sure the team is using everyone’s correct pronouns. This stuff matters.
As bartender Ashoka Wallace notes, consider uniform policies, if relevant. “Check what your staff are comfortable wearing.” Don’t just assume a gender binary, or that cis people are comfortable ascribing to trousers-or-skirt stereotypes either. “Encourage them to wear what they feel comfortable in.”
Now is the time to review your company’s inclusion policies. Consider making sure at least some of your workplace toilets are gender neutral – not just for employees, but for customers, too.
If you’re a bar, make sure your team is equipped to deal with transphobic hate from customers. In environments where alcohol is consumed, those who perhaps feel emboldened by the Supreme Court ruling could feel doubly so when under the influence.
HR advice states that policies will need to be updated to be compliant with the Supreme Court ruling. But, as Gendered Intelligence notes, it “doesn’t mean trans people can or should be regularly excluded from women’s services and spaces. The law – and common sense – still says that trans people should not be excluded without a proportionate and legitimate reason.
“It's too early to say how service providers and the government will interpret this judgement. Ultimately, people who want to exclude trans women from services and institutions will likely feel empowered to do so, but services and institutions that want to include trans women will not be restricted from including them.” Be one of those companies that is proactively inclusive.
What’s needed right now is boldness. We need unapologetic advocacy, and proactive trans inclusion. Don’t assume that trans people know your business is one that validates them – in this current climate, the opposite is the default. “As a non-binary individual, I go to a lot of women's events,” Wallace adds. “If you run one of these events and you care for trans folks, then make sure your organisation actually represents that.”
Use your platform. Join campaigns. Push for change. This is the time for cis people to do the legwork. Because, as the Supreme Court has shown, no-ones rights are secure. The roll-back stops now.
A quick note on terminology:
Some people and media organisations use ‘trans+’ or ‘women+’ as good-faith shorthand to intentionally include broader demographics. Trans+ likely refers to trans, non-binary, gender-diverse and agender (those who don’t subscribe to any gender) people, while women+ generally adds cis women to this group.
AFAB and AMAB can be seen as transphobic terms by some in the trans and queer community
Cis or cisgender just means people whose gender ‘aligns’ with the sex they were assigned at birth. These terms are not slurs and do not carry any negative connotations.
