Universities should be positive disruptors on trans inclusion

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, ruling that under the Equality Act 2010 a woman is defined by biological sex.

This ruling has had a profound impact on organisations, with both Girlguiding and the Women’s Institute actioning policies that are possibly trans-exclusionary.

While these organisations may not wish to be trans-exclusionary, they have felt pressured by law to enact some kind of policy that aligns with the current ruling.

And while the Supreme Court ruling provides a definition of sex in law, it offers little guidance on how this should be operationalised within multi-layered institutional settings such as universities.

Confusion reigns

Several higher education institutions have already attempted to pass policy that aimed to be as inclusive as possible of transgender and gender non-conforming students.

However, one example – the University of Leicester – has faced legal action because of its trans-inclusive policies.

As an academic working in a university as both an associate lecturer and co-director of equality, diversity, and inclusion, I have observed universities’ initial responses to these policies.

They largely consist of confusion in the first instance, followed by lengthy engagement in various working groups with two aims – first, to follow the new, somewhat unclear policy to the letter, and second, to try to maintain or create a trans-inclusive environment.

This is difficult because the policy simultaneously requires single-sex spaces while stating that transgender discrimination is wrong. The emergence of multiple working groups, delayed policy decisions, and divergent institutional responses speaks to the uncertainty universities are now facing – placing higher education institutions in the difficult position of balancing a newly clarified legal definition with long-standing commitments to inclusion, equality, and student welfare.

The confusion around this ruling is likely having an impact on professional relationships between transgender and cisgender members of university communities across the UK.

Why relationships matter

Forming professional relationships is key for members of universities – acting as a pathway to hearing diverse voices in the university community and implementing appropriate policy.

As a psychologist specialising in relationships between dominant and marginalised groups, I am well-versed in the evidence base for why creating an inclusive environment with supportive relationships is important.

Rather than assessing the legal merits of the decision, my focus is on how its interpretation is shaping institutional behaviour and action.

One key part of enacting inclusive behaviour is through strengthening supportive relationships between members of the university community. Supportive relationships are key for enhancing health by reducing stress and improving coping mechanisms – to name one important mechanism highlighted by relationships researchers such as Julianne Holt-Lunstad.

All people experience everyday stress one way or another, whether it’s the car breaking down, the bus being late, or power outages. However, transgender people – and indeed other marginalised groups – experience additional stressors through a process called minority stress.

In its simplest terms, this can be defined as the extraneous additional stressors experienced by the marginalised, including transphobia, specific forms of discrimination, and intentional misgendering.

Through forging reassuring and kind relationships with transgender people, and indeed marginalised groups in general, we can create an inclusive university environment that bolsters the health of its community.

Positive disruptors

This is where we as academics come in – as educators, researchers, and experts. We have the power as institutions to go against the grain and say “this is not right.”

We can dive into the evidence base – we can see that transgender and gender non-conforming people have an estimated 45 per cent suicidal ideation rate, we can see that the majority of crime is not committed by transgender and gender non-conforming people, we can see that crime estimated to be enacted toward transgender people is at twice the rate of cisgender people, or plausibly four times due to hate crime being under-reported.

As universities we can be – to borrow a term from Julie Hulme – positive disruptors. Encouraging and enabling transgender joy is essential to creating a positive experience at university which helps improve feelings of gender congruence. We can fight this misinformed policy through our actions, we can create spaces that are safe for transgender students and staff, we can be the bastion of inclusivity and uphold what universities truly are – safe spaces for complex debates and places of learning.

Some principles

Considering the lack of any guidance, I have included some here which are largely based on principle.

The first step in being a positive disruptor is through including transgender and gender non-conforming people in the policymaking of universities from staff and student populations.

Another recommendation is ensuring that transgender and gender non-conforming people are empowered in these spaces through any necessary champions or allies that can bolster their stance and ensure their voice is heard.

Lastly, universities should strive to make their spaces democratic and transparent to their members from all walks of life.

These are but a few recommendations, but as foundational principles and practices they can help disrupt the status quo in a positive direction for our university communities.