The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has issued interim guidance concerning the interpretation of the UK Supreme Court’s decision that legally defines a woman by biological sex.
According to the new guidance, venues such as hospitals, retail locations, and eateries should not allow “trans women (biological men) to utilize women’s facilities.” However, it emphasizes that trans individuals should not be left without accessible facilities.
The EHRC clarified that it is releasing this interim guidance due to “widespread inquiries regarding the judgement and its implications.”
Further guidance regarding single-sex participation in competitive sports is forthcoming, according to the EHRC.
Recently, the Supreme Court determined that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act refer specifically to biological women and biological sex.
This ruling allows for the exclusion of transgender women—who may identify as women but are biologically male—from women-only spaces.
In delivering the judgement, Supreme Court Justice Lord Hodge emphasized that the law continues to protect transgender individuals from discrimination.
The EHRC, which upholds equality legislation and advises policymakers and businesses, stated that the ruling implies “identifying as trans does not equate to a legal change of sex under the [Equality] Act, even with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).”
In this context, the EHRC articulated that “a trans woman is a biological man” and “a trans man is a biological woman.”
Moreover, the guidance indicates that “under certain circumstances, trans women (biological men) may also be restricted from using men’s facilities, and trans men (biological women) may be denied access to women’s facilities.”
When asked for clarification, the EHRC referred to a portion of the Supreme Court ruling asserting that trans men might be excluded from women’s facilities “where reasonable objection is raised due to their appearance or attributes that could cause concern in women-only settings.”
The EHRC guidance further states: “Nonetheless, when facilities are available for both genders, trans individuals should not be left without accessible options.”
Commissioner and barrister Akua Reindorf KC communicated on BBC Radio 4’s PM programme that determinations regarding the exclusion of trans men from women’s facilities would be evaluated “on a case-by-case basis.”
She emphasized that there “should never be a situation where a trans person lacks access to restroom facilities.”
However, citing a rape crisis counseling session, she noted that a trans man could be “legitimately excluded due to the potential distress it may cause vulnerable women to share a space with someone who appears to be a man.”
The guidance advises providing mixed-sex toilets, washing, or changing areas alongside sufficient single-sex facilities whenever feasible.
Alternatively, it suggests consolidating all-gender facilities as long as they are “lockable rooms (not cubicles)” meant for individual use. An example could be a singular restroom in a small café.
Regarding schools, it states: “Pupils identifying as trans girls (biological boys) should not have access to girls’ toilets or changing facilities, and those identifying as trans boys (biological girls) should not access boys’ toilets or changing areas. Appropriate alternative arrangements may be necessary.”
In organizations—groups or clubs with more than 25 members—the EHRC asserts that “women-only or lesbian-only associations should exclude trans women (biological men), and men-only or gay men-only associations should not admit trans men (biological women).”
The EHRC’s interim guidance, released online last Friday, aims to clarify the key consequences of the Supreme Court ruling.
It adds, “Employers and other duty-bearers must adhere to the law and seek specialized legal advice as necessary.”
An upcoming two-week consultation is anticipated in May to gather input from “affected stakeholders.”
By the end of June, the EHRC aims to present an updated code of practice to the government for ministerial approval.
A government representative stated, “We welcome the ruling and the clarity it provides for women and service providers.”
The spokesperson added that policies would be reviewed and updated where necessary to ensure compliance with the latest legal requirements.
A Scottish government representative expressed a desire to collaborate with the EHRC to develop consistent, inclusive, and comprehensive guidance following the Supreme Court’s decision, and plans to meet with the organization for further discussions.