This essay examines the UK Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers and considers whether it strikes a legitimate balance between sex-based rights and transgender inclusion. It argues that, although the Court presented its reasoning as necessary for legal clarity and coherence, the judgment ultimately prioritized a biological understanding of sex. Drawing on feminist and queer legal theory, the essay demonstrates that biological sex may justify distinctions in certain contexts, but should not operate as a universal principle across equality law. It concludes that a context-based and purpose-oriented approach provides a more convincing framework for balancing sex-based protections and transgender inclusion.