How the EHRC Enabled an Anti-Trans Agenda

In January 2023, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) held a closed-door meeting with Sex Matters, a group whose core mission is to roll back legal protections for trans people. For months, the meeting remained hidden from public view until our Freedom of Information (FOI) request forced its disclosure.

The EHRC’s formal FOI response confirmed the meeting, and its internal notes lay bare a disturbing pattern: Britain’s human rights regulator gave a sympathetic hearing to a group lobbying to legally erase trans people from equality law. The Commission not only failed to push back; it offered help, validation, and possible next steps.

What emerges is a troubling portrait of a regulatory body drifting into ideological capture, and of trans communities being excluded from decisions that profoundly affect their lives.

“Trans Women and Men Do Not Exist Legally”

Sex Matters did not mince words. They argued that the Equality Act 2010 is unworkable because trans people are legally ambiguous or, in their view, legally nonexistent.

“Maya added trans women and trans men do not exist legally; if trans women as a distinct group are discriminated against they could be referred to as ‘males with a GRC’.” — Disclosure, p. 2

This is a radical claim. It dismisses decades of legal precedent and statutory protection under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which affirms that trans people who obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) must be treated for all legal purposes as their acquired gender. Sex Matters explicitly called for this framework to be overturned—not through open parliamentary debate, but via a ministerial order under Section 23 of the GRA.

“The Government must exercise its power under s.23 of the Gender Recognition Act to modify the operation of the Equality Act 2010 by specifying the terms sex, male, female, man & woman… mean biological sex.” — Disclosure, p. 2

EHRC’s Response: Listening, Not Challenging

Instead of pushing back against these claims—or defending the legal status of trans people—the EHRC appeared receptive. At no point in the notes is there a record of anyone at the Commission challenging the assertion that trans people “do not exist legally” or that the law is broken.

“MF [Melanie Field] also recognised a perhaps overly risk-averse approach to gender identity and inclusion has blurred people’s understanding of the law and that the EHRC’s single sex spaces guidance was an attempt to help with that, but that it is helpful to hear Maya’s articulations of where the law is not working as intended.” — Disclosure, p. 2

This is not the language of a neutral regulator. It’s the language of an institution validating a policy agenda driven by anti-trans ideology.

Legal Reinterpretation via the Back Door

Sex Matters’ core demand was for the EHRC to support redefining “sex” in the Equality Act to mean biological sex. This would:

  • Undermine the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
  • Allow organisations to legally exclude all trans women from “women’s services,” regardless of GRC.
  • Strip trans men of male recognition in law.
  • Potentially cause chaos in pensions, marriage, data protection, and healthcare systems.

The EHRC acknowledged these stakes in the abstract:

“Were sex in the EquA not to mean legal sex, those with a Gender Recognition Certificate would be of one sex for most legal purposes… but of the other for equality and non-discrimination rights.” — Disclosure, p. 3

Yet they failed to clarify that the courts (at the time)—including the UK Supreme Court—had repeatedly upheld that sex in the Equality Act does mean legal sex, including GRC-holders. Instead, the Commission opened the door to Sex Matters’ narrative of confusion and chaos, rather than correcting it.

3. Sex Matters’ proposal for amending the 2010 EA
3.1. We agree with Sex Matters that it is important to have clarity in the law, and we
will be actively observing the outcomes of the anticipated appeals of both the For
Women Scotland case and the UK Government’s decision to prevent the Scottish
Gender Recognition Reform Bill receiving Royal Assent.

A Strategic Political Play, Enabled by the EHRC

Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce were clear that their campaign is political, and that recent events gave them an opportunity.

“She noted the For Women Scotland case was only relevant to one minor aspect of the EqAct, but Sex Matters is keen to push a much wider legal debate. She also thought that the section 35 order in relation to the Scottish gender recognition reform proposals presents an opportunity and has made their own proposals ‘an acceptable thing to talk about’.” — Disclosure, p. 3

This is not about legal clarity. It’s about exploiting political moments—like the UK Government’s block on Scottish reforms—to push trans exclusion into the political mainstream. And the EHRC, rather than challenging that agenda, helped normalise it.

Transparency and Selective Disclosure

The original Disclosure.pdf states the meeting was arranged “at the Chairwoman’s request”—a claim the EHRC later walked back in their FOI response:

“The Chairwoman did not proactively seek a meeting with Sex Matters, it was only after being approached did the Commission agree to the meeting.” — FOI Response, p. 2

Why did the EHRC not correct this themselves before the FOI compelled them to? Why was this meeting—potentially reshaping the Commission’s legal interpretations—not published proactively?

To make matters worse, the page footers suggest missing content. Pages that the EHRC claims never existed, despite formatting inconsistencies. This signals, at best, poor documentation practices and, at worst, possible withholding of information.

No Equivalent Access for Trans Groups

There is no evidence that the EHRC met with trans advocacy organisations in the same period or offered the same level of deference. There was no consultation with the people these proposals would harm. Sex Matters were allowed to shape the conversation. Trans people weren’t even invited to the table.

This is more than institutional bias. It’s systemic exclusion.

A Regulator in Retreat

The January 2023 meeting between the EHRC and Sex Matters shows a human rights body quietly aligning itself with those seeking to remove rights from a vulnerable minority. It shows the EHRC willing to hear and even act on proposals that would undo the legal recognition of trans people. And it shows a Commission that is no longer defending equality, but debating whether it still applies.

Trans people weren’t in the room. But their rights were. And the EHRC—by silence, by sympathy, by omission—put those rights on the negotiating table.

September 2024: A Second Closed-Door Meeting

This January 2023 meeting was not an isolated incident. In September 2024, Sex Matters met with the EHRC again—this time with Baroness Falkner in attendance—to press further for changes to statutory guidance and promote blanket trans exclusions as legal “clarity.” A follow-up email to Falkner included proposed draft language, polling data, and a reinterpretation of case law, revealing a sustained and coordinated lobbying campaign.

Follow-up

We have submitted a formal request for an internal review of the EHRC’s FOI response, specifically regarding the missing pages indicated by the document pagination and the redacted names. We have asked for confirmation of whether any of the redactions relate to Commissioners, whose identities are public and relevant due to known conflicts of interest on matters of sex and gender.

Dear Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective Your Freedom of Information Request Thank you for your request, detailed below, which we received on 23 May 2025. "Please provide the minutes, notes, agenda, attendee list, or any other recorded information relating to any meeting(s) held between the EHRC and the organisation, Sex Matters, and/or Maya Forstater in January 2023. If no such meeting took place during that time, I would appreciate confirmation of this." This request is being handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA). Response We can confirm that the Equality and Human Rights Commission holds information within the scope of your request. Please find this information alongside this letter.
Please note, the letter referred to on page 3 of the Disclosure document (paragraph 4.1) is publicly available, and under Section 21 of the FoIA, we have provided a link below to where you can access this information: https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Copy-of-Letter-to-KemiBadenoch.docx.pdf Please also note that: 1. the Disclosure document includes all information held by the Commission in respect of this meeting. The page footers within the Disclosure document indicate that further pages should be present, however this is not the case. 2. page 1 of the Disclosure document indicates that the meeting was organised at the Chairwoman’s request, however this is later corrected on page 7 which explains that the meeting was at the request of Sex Matters. We can confirm that the Chairwoman did not proactively seek a meeting with Sex Matters, it was only after being approached did the Commission agree to the meeting. Finally, please be aware that we have redacted the name of a staff member from the Disclosure document as we consider disclosure of this information would be in breach of the first data protection principle, therefore an exemption from disclosure under Section 40(2) of the FoIA is engaged. Section 40: Personal information Section 40(2) of the FoIA (as amended by Schedule 19, Part 1, Paragraphs 55 – 64 of the Data Protection Act 2018), outlines that any information to which a request for information relates is exempt information if it constitutes personal data in which the applicant is not the data subject, and if one of the following conditions is satisfied
• Disclosure would breach any of the data protection principals, • Disclosure would contravene the right to object to processing, • Disclosure would be incompatible with the restricted provisions of the right of access The first data protection principle presents the requirement that personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly, and transparently. An assessment of each component has been conducted to determine whether disclosure of this information would be in breach of this principle. Lawfulness There are six lawful bases for processing under Article 6 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). Those relevant to disclosure under the FoIA are limited to (a) consent and (f) legitimate interests. As an employer, the Commission is considered to be in a position of power, therefore inhibiting its ability to demonstrate that consent to disclosure from its staff would be freely given. Accounting for this factor, consent has not been sought. Any such consent could be considered invalid, failing to fulfil the requirements of this basis. For legitimate interests to apply, the Commission must balance the purpose and necessity of disclosure against the interests, rights, and freedoms of the individual to which the data relates. On balance, we are unable to identify any overriding legitimate interest when weighted against the rights and freedoms of the staff member concerned. Fairness and Transparency Fairness and transparency are considered as processing personal data in a way that would be reasonably expected, in a manner that would have no
unjustifiable adverse effect on the individual concerned and in a clear, open and honest fashion. Our staff privacy notice helps manage employee expectations in relation to personal data disclosures under the FoIA. Commission Directors and holders of other public facing roles carry greater levels of accountability and representation of the EHRC externally, therefore disclosure of their data can be fairly anticipated. In comparison, less senior staff members do not carry the same levels of responsibility, diminishing the reasonable expectation that their personal data would be disclosed in response to an information request. Conclusion Based on our assessment, we have determined that disclosure of this information would be in breach of the first data protection principle. Without sufficient justifications for disclosure under the FoIA, aside from general transparency, we conclude that the Section 40(2) exemption is to be maintained and accordingly the name of the staff member has been withheld. Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption, therefore no consideration of the public interest test is required. Internal Review If you are unhappy with our response and wish to request an internal review please write to the Information Governance Team within 40 days of receiving this letter setting out your reasons at:
DisclosureDownload