JD Wetherspoon staff at a pub in Edinburgh refused to serve members of the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland as they celebrated a significant Supreme Court ruling. The ruling, handed down by five justices, confirmed that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex. The incident occurred on December 29, 2025, when co-leaders of the group, Susan Smith and Marion Calder, attempted to raise a glass in recognition of the decision that has stirred considerable debate across the UK.
Calder, a 54-year-old NHS worker, reported that several employees recognized them and chose not to serve them. She later recounted her experience, saying, “You’ll never guess what’s happened here at Spoons” when she contacted a local journalist. Following this, the communications manager for Wetherspoon intervened, leading to a resolution that allowed Smith and Calder to continue their celebration after the staff left the area.
Sir Tim Martin, founder and chairman of Wetherspoon, characterized the incident as an “initial hiccup.” In a statement to The Telegraph, he expressed support for the campaigners, saying, “If you win a court case, especially a Supreme Court case, you would expect to be allowed to celebrate in a pub.”
The Supreme Court ruling has broad implications for the interpretation of sex under equality law, emphasizing biological definitions. This ruling has placed pressure on government officials regarding new guidance for gender-segregated spaces, particularly in light of ongoing discussions about transgender rights.
In a related political context, Bridget Phillipson, the Women and Equalities Secretary, has delayed the publication of new guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). This guidance aims to clarify the application of the Supreme Court ruling regarding women-only spaces, including restrooms and changing facilities. Critics of the draft guidance argue that it could lead to exclusionary practices against transgender women.
Phillipson has expressed concerns about the draft, labeling it as “trans-exclusive” and suggesting that it could have unintended consequences. She highlighted potential scenarios where women might be prevented from bringing their infant sons into women-only spaces, asserting that the Supreme Court ruling primarily addressed maternity protections rather than imposing blanket restrictions on access.
The lack of approved guidance leaves businesses, hospitals, and public entities without clear protocols for implementing the ruling. This uncertainty continues to fuel discussions on gender rights and protections.
Earlier in December, Calder voiced her concerns regarding a recent tribunal ruling involving nurse Sandie Peggie, which appeared to contradict the Supreme Court decision. The tribunal ruled that health authorities had harassed Peggie but allowed a biological male to use a female changing room, prompting criticism from women’s rights advocates who viewed it as conflicting with the earlier ruling.
Calder emphasized the importance of leadership on women’s rights issues, urging political figures such as Keir Starmer to take a definitive stance. She remarked, “This does go against our ruling at the Supreme Court, and it does appear that this tribunal… was trying to rework our case, which is astonishing.”
As these discussions unfold, the implications of the Supreme Court ruling, along with the responses from public figures and organizations, continue to shape the landscape of gender rights in the UK. The incident at Wetherspoon serves as a microcosm of the broader societal debates surrounding these issues.
