Comment on the Supreme Court ruling from dsdfamilies, May 2025
We have received various questions about the April 2025 UK Supreme Court ruling and the potential impact on people with differences of sex development (DSD).
The law recognises the complexity of biological sex for babies, children and adults who are born with DSD. We are satisfied that sufficient DSD-specific provisions are available which this ruling does not affect.
In the UK, all individuals born with DSD have a registered sex at birth, which is considered their biological sex. When a baby is born with an atypical genital appearance, further medical assessments are conducted. A multidisciplinary healthcare team, in consultation with the family, determines the appropriate sex assignment, which is legally recorded as the child's biological sex. Similarly, when a young woman is diagnosed with DSD, e.g. during puberty, comprehensive evaluations are performed to understand the atypical sex development pathway. Unless she, supported by her medical team, chooses to apply for a revision, her registered sex remains her biological sex.
It is uncommon for individuals with DSD to seek a revision of their sex registration and there are limited systematic data available on this matter. DSD-specific provisions for revising sex registration have already been established through the General Register Office (GRO) and require medical evidence. Our current understanding is that the revised sex registration reflects the individual's biological sex. We have contacted the GRO and the Office for Equality and Opportunity to confirm this and to obtain specific legal documents related to this process.
There may be adults with a DSD diagnosis who, possibly due to dissatisfaction with their medical care, or to difficulties associated with non-consensual medical interventions in childhood, or to personal preferences, did not seek medical support to apply for a sex registration revision through DSD-specific provisions. Instead, they may have applied for a Gender Recognition Certificate. Whilst we have not received any questions about this, we have contacted the GRO and the Office for Equality and Opportunity to explore how we can support these individuals.
Discussions around the ruling may further exacerbate the oversimplification, misrepresentation, and weaponisation of DSD/Intersex by third parties, resulting in an overemphasis on the body in ways that dehumanise the person. Poorly informed communication about DSD would only serve to increase fear and stigmatisation of a small and marginalised population, and discourage them from accessing support. In our equal and open society, DSD-impacted people are due the same dignity and respect as all others. We remind all organisations of their obligation and invite them to join with
us in promoting the health, well-being, and happiness of people with DSD.
