Gender critical

Gender critical is a term used to describe a set of beliefs centred on the view that biological sex is fixed and should be treated as distinct from gender identity. The term is contested: some who hold these views describe them as a matter of established legal and philosophical principle, while others – including many trans people and LGBT organisations – regard the gender-critical movement as primarily hostile to trans inclusion and rights. This article documents the term’s use, associated organisations and relevant UK legal cases.

Core arguments

Gender-critical advocates make a range of arguments about sex, gender identity, law and healthcare. These are contested by trans rights organisations and many in the wider LGBT community; this section presents those arguments as made by their advocates, not as editorial positions.

Sex and gender identity are distinct. The foundational gender-critical position is that biological sex – determined by chromosomes, reproductive biology and associated physiology – is real, binary and cannot be changed, and that it is distinct from gender identity (a person’s internal sense of being a man, woman or neither). Gender-critical advocates argue that law and policy should be grounded in biological sex rather than gender identity. Trans rights organisations counter that gender identity is equally real, that it can differ from biological sex, and that legal and social recognition of gender identity is essential to trans people’s dignity and safety.

Children and clinical practice. Gender-critical advocates express concern about significant increases in the number of young people – particularly adolescent girls – presenting at gender identity services. They argue that some of those referred may be gender non-conforming young people, including those who might later identify as gay or lesbian, who risk being placed on a medical pathway that may not be right for them. A related concern is that healthcare practitioners working within an affirmative model of care – which accepts a young person’s stated gender identity without extensive exploration – may feel unable to examine underlying psychological factors for fear of being seen as transphobic or of falling foul of broadly drafted guidance. Trans rights advocates argue that these concerns mischaracterise trans identities as confused gay or lesbian identities, and that the affirmative model reflects rather than creates a young person’s gender identity.

The independent Cass Review (2024), commissioned by NHS England, raised some related concerns about clinical practice and the evidence base for medical interventions for children and young people, leading to significant changes in NHS gender services. The review was welcomed by some gender-critical groups; it was criticised by some trans advocacy organisations and clinicians who disputed elements of its methodology and cautioned against its findings being used selectively.

Conversion therapy legislation. Gender-critical advocates have argued that broadly drafted conversion therapy legislation risks conflating two distinct things: harmful practices that attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation, which they support banning, and legitimate exploratory therapy that examines the factors underlying a young person’s gender dysphoria, which they argue should remain permissible. They contend that criminalising the latter could place a chilling effect on clinical practice. The UK government’s proposed conversion therapy ban was repeatedly paused and narrowed, partly in response to these concerns; gender identity was excluded from its initial scope.

Single-sex spaces. Gender-critical advocates argue that some spaces and services – including refuges for survivors of domestic violence, hospital wards, changing rooms, prisons and competitive sport – should be available on the basis of biological sex rather than gender identity, on grounds of safety, privacy and fairness. In April 2025 the UK Supreme Court ruled in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers that the term “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, giving legal grounding to this position in some contexts. Trans rights organisations have argued that the ruling will be used to exclude trans women from spaces where their presence poses no risk, and that such exclusion causes real harm to trans people.

Workplace expression. Following the Forstater v CGD Europe Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling (2021), gender-critical beliefs are protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010, meaning people cannot lawfully be dismissed or penalised solely for holding them. Gender-critical advocates argue this protection is necessary because those who express such views have faced professional consequences. The ruling drew a distinction between holding gender-critical beliefs, which is protected, and expressing them in ways that amount to harassment of trans people, which is not.

Legal recognition

In the UK, gender-critical beliefs have been found to qualify for protection as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. In Forstater v CGD Europe (2021), the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that Maya Forstater’s gender-critical beliefs were protected under the Act, overturning an earlier employment tribunal decision. Forstater had not had her contract renewed by the Center for Global Development in 2019 after posting comments on government proposals regarding gender recognition. In 2023 she was awarded compensation by an employment tribunal. The ruling drew a distinction between holding gender-critical beliefs – which are protected – and expressing them in ways that may amount to harassment of trans people, which remains subject to other provisions of the Act.

Other instances where gender-critical beliefs have featured in legal or employment disputes include a 2024 tribunal finding that the Green Party discriminated against former deputy leader Dr Shahrar Ali in relation to his gender-critical views, and the case of Rev. Dr Bernard Randall, who was dismissed from his post as chaplain at Trent College, a Church of England school, following a sermon addressing the school’s approach to LGBT-inclusive policies, and who subsequently brought employment tribunal proceedings. Legal disputes in this area have continued to develop; a January 2024 Guardian article reviewed several ongoing cases.

In April 2025 the UK Supreme Court ruled in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers that the term “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not certificated sex – a ruling with significant implications for the interpretation of single-sex spaces and services. See For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers for a full account.

Trans people are themselves protected under the Equality Act 2010 under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, and there have been numerous successful discrimination claims brought by trans individuals in UK employment tribunals.

Medical and scientific debate

The relationship between sex, gender and gender identity is an active area of debate in medicine, psychology and the social sciences. Mainstream professional bodies in the UK – including the NHS, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists – have broadly supported gender-affirming approaches to care for trans people, though guidance in some areas has continued to develop.

In April 2024 Dr Hilary Cass published an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people in England, commissioned by NHS England. The review found the evidence base for puberty blockers and some hormone treatments was weaker than had been assumed, and recommended significant changes to how services were structured and delivered. NHS England subsequently closed the Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust. The Cass Review was welcomed by some gender-critical groups as validating their concerns about the medicalisation of gender non-conforming children; it was criticised by some trans advocacy organisations and clinicians who disputed elements of its methodology. It is an independent NHS-commissioned review, not a gender-critical document, and its findings continue to be debated among clinicians and researchers.

Organisations

A number of organisations describe themselves as gender-critical or campaign on related issues, including LGB Alliance, Sex Matters, LGB Liberal Forum, LGB Christians, Sex Matters to Quakers, SEEN and Lesbian Labour. These organisations are widely opposed by mainstream LGBT bodies – including Stonewall, the LGBT Consortium and Gendered Intelligence – who argue that gender-critical positions are harmful to trans people and inconsistent with an inclusive approach to LGB rights.

Genspect, an international organisation associated with gender-critical perspectives on youth gender medicine, describes gender as a social construction distinct from biological sex – a starting premise with broad academic support. Genspect and others go on to argue this means gender identity should not be given legal or social weight equivalent to biological sex, a further conclusion that is contested by many trans rights organisations, mainstream medical bodies and some academics.

In media

The 2022 documentary Adult Human Female presented a gender-critical perspective on debates around sex and gender recognition, featuring interviewees including the novelist Simon Edge. The film has been widely described as an advocacy documentary rather than balanced journalism.

In 2023 Channel 4 broadcast Gender Wars, a documentary exploring both gender-critical and trans-inclusive perspectives. The programme featured [[Kathleen Stock]], a gender-critical philosopher who resigned from the University of Sussex in 2021 following sustained protest by students and staff over her published views on sex and gender.