The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has revised its recommendations for applying a Supreme Court decision on gender, following input from the government on the initial draft from last year. In an announcement, the EHRC explained that it incorporated government suggestions, public feedback, and additional legal insights to refine the official code of practice. This update addresses worries from lawmakers and transgender advocacy organizations that the earlier version, submitted in September under former chair Kishwer Falkner, posed legal challenges for entities and could effectively bar transgender individuals from many public areas. The code explains how companies and groups should practically adhere to the court’s determination that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act means biological sex only. Previous temporary guidance from the EHRC, later retracted under Lady Falkner, indicated that transgender people could not access restrooms aligned with their lived gender and, in certain situations, not even those matching their birth sex. In January, reports indicated that under new chair Mary-Ann Stephenson, the EHRC was exploring modifications to the code to reduce burdens on organizations and better reconcile safeguards for single-sex areas with transgender individuals’ needs. On Tuesday, Stephenson noted that officials had recently offered specific feedback on the September draft. She stated: ‘After reviewing this input along with consultation comments and more legal review, we have introduced changes to ensure the code delivers precise, actionable advice that’s helpful for those responsible. These revisions enhance comprehension of the law and its application in everyday situations, promoting respectful treatment of all users in accordance with the Equality Act.’ The revised code is now under review by Bridget Phillipson, the equalities minister, who needs to endorse it before parliamentary presentation. In a formal response, Phillipson expressed appreciation for the EHRC’s adjustments and affirmed: ‘This administration has consistently backed protections for single-sex spaces grounded in biological sex.’ She mentioned that additional details could not be shared due to the pre-election restrictions for Scottish and Welsh assembly votes. Maya Forstater, head of the rights group Sex Matters, called this reasoning inadequate and voiced worries about behind-the-scenes dealings between the government and EHRC. ‘It’s remarkable that one year post the Supreme Court decision and seven months since the regulator first presented its code, the government cites another reason for postponement,’ she said. ‘This delay over the past year has inflicted real damage on many women. The claim of longstanding support for biological sex-based single-sex spaces insults the women and girls who have endured harassment and exclusion from employment and services for expressing similar views.’ Claire Coutinho, the opposition equalities spokesperson, urged Phillipson to release the EHRC advice immediately instead of using local elections as a pretext for further hesitation. Alex Parmar-Yee, leader of the Trans+ Solidarity Alliance, welcomed the government’s recognition of the original draft’s harsh and impractical nature. ‘Imposing a nationwide restroom restriction disguised as equality policy contradicts Labour’s principles, and we trust the updated advice eliminates that concept entirely,’ they said. ‘The past year has been extremely difficult for transgender individuals and supportive groups – now we await confirmation on whether this administration has addressed its duties properly and resolved this issue.’
