The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has issued new guidance requiring that single-sex spaces in public services be organized based on biological sex, following a Supreme Court ruling last year which clarified that the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. The revised code of practice took effect this week, prompting a stark divide between the EHRC and several left-leaning local authorities.
Mary-Ann Stephenson, chair of the EHRC, warned that councils failing to comply with the new guidance risk legal action, including lawsuits brought by members of the public. She emphasized that public bodies are legally obliged to follow the law and indicated that some councils’ vocal opposition might be more performative than reflective of actual legal standing.
In contrast, leaders of six London boroughs—Lambeth, Hackney, Haringey, Lewisham, Southwark, and Waltham Forest—have publicly pledged to disregard the guidance. These councils, predominantly controlled by Labour, Green, and Liberal Democrat politicians, described the code as harmful to the rights of transgender and non-binary people and stated their intention to maintain services that are inclusive of gender identity rather than strictly based on biological sex. Their joint statement affirmed the validity of trans and non-binary identities and warned that enforcing the code could feel like an attack on these communities. Hackney is reportedly facing a formal legal challenge over claims it has failed to provide female-only services, marking one of the first legal moves since the guidance’s implementation.
Some councils outside London have taken similar positions. Bristol City Council, for example, said that services could admit people according to gender identity but insisted that such spaces should not be described as “female-only,” instead adopting terms like “single-gender” or “trans-inclusive.” Meanwhile, Islington Council criticized the guidance as contradictory and poorly drafted, warning it risked fostering suspicion toward transgender individuals.
The debate has also extended into Parliament and the wider community. Shadow Equalities Minister Claire Coutinho has affirmed the clarity of the law, while Labour MPs, including Nadia Whittome, have backed judicial reviews challenging the code, arguing that it imposes a blanket prohibition on trans-inclusive gendered services. Baroness Falkner, a former EHRC chair, expressed concerns about the regulator’s limited funding, suggesting the law might remain unenforced and leave individuals to pursue costly legal battles.
Voices from the advocacy side emphasize the need for clear national leadership and enforcement. Bethany Hutchison, a nurse who successfully challenged access rights in a hospital case, underscored the unfairness of relying on individuals to uphold legal protections. Similarly, Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, criticized the situation as unjust that women’s rights must be defended through expensive litigation.
The guidance applies broadly to organizations providing services or exercising public functions, including local councils, NHS trusts, universities, charities, and businesses. However, some institutions have yet to commit to changes; NHS England declined to specify a timetable for revising policies related to trans patient ward allocations. The National Union of Students has issued advice reportedly encouraging students to resist the code, while activist groups such as Bash Back have urged defiance of the guidance, framing it as part of broader resistance against what they describe as discriminatory rules.
The government has reiterated its commitment to balancing the protection of single-sex spaces with safeguarding the rights of transgender people, stating that existing laws against discrimination and harassment of trans individuals remain in force. The unfolding situation underscores ongoing tensions over how best to uphold competing legal protections in public services across the country.