Let’s not beat around the bush. The ‘Equality and Human Rights’ Commission’s new draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations isn’t just a dull legal document—it’s a roadmap for quietly rolling back trans rights, one “legitimate aim” at a time.
Following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers this April, the EHRC has updated its guidance to reflect the newly imposed interpretation that sex under the Equality Act 2010 means “biological sex”. Never mind if you have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). In the eyes of the law—and now, in this code—you are the sex you were assigned at birth. End of story.
The GRC Is Dead. Long Live ‘Biological Essentialism’.
Remember the GRC? The document that was once supposed to affirm your legal gender? The one that Parliament passed into law back in 2004 with the promise of privacy and dignity? According to this new Code, a GRC no longer changes your legal sex for any purpose under the Equality Act. That’s right—your birth certificate rules supreme, even if you’ve legally transitioned.
This change isn’t just technical—it’s existential. It means trans women are officially not women under the Act, and trans men are not men. In practice, that legal fiction has devastating consequences.
Separate, But Not Equal
The Code frames itself as a neutral explanation of the law. But what it really does is codify discrimination by design. Page after page explains how organisations can exclude trans people from single-sex spaces—services, toilets, support groups, associations, sport—by relying on the new interpretation of sex.
Trans people can now be asked for their birth sex. Not their lived gender, not their legal documents, but the sex they were labelled with as infants. If they lie, they can be excluded. If they tell the truth, they can still be excluded.
One charming detail: if an organisation does include trans women in a women’s service, it may no longer qualify as a “single-sex” service at all, thus becoming unlawful under the very law it was trying to comply with. So the Code quietly tells service providers: if you want to stay on the safe side, just exclude them.
“We’re Not Saying You Have To… But You Probably Should”
Throughout, the Code dances the language of deniability. It insists that exclusions must be “proportionate” and based on “legitimate aims”. But it then hands providers a ready-made script: say it’s about privacy, safety, or dignity. Say trans inclusion might distress others. The message is clear: you can exclude trans people, and here’s exactly how.
This has implications far beyond toilets and changing rooms. Trans people could now be lawfully turned away from rape crisis centres, domestic violence shelters, women’s groups, religious events, hospital wards, and even social clubs, based solely on birth sex.
Non-Binary People: Left in Legal Limbo
While the Code is fixated on “biological sex” and makes a point of excluding trans people from legal recognition of their gender, it says almost nothing about non-binary people. The result? Legal limbo. Non-binary individuals aren’t recognised as a distinct category under the Equality Act, and this new guidance offers no clarity on what services they are allowed to access or how providers should accommodate them.
Worse still, for non-binary people with an androgynous appearance, this lack of guidance can turn into outright exclusion. If they don’t “look” like they belong in either the men’s or women’s space, they may be challenged, questioned, or even turned away from both. The Code opens the door to that kind of gatekeeping—and slams it shut on dignity, autonomy, and inclusion.
Harassment By Design
Even the Code’s examples of discrimination are laced with erasure. A trans woman applying to be treasurer of a club is told, “We want a man to do it.” She’s allowed to sue for sex discrimination—but only because she was perceived as a woman, not because she is one. Legal protections by illusion, not recognition.
Sport: Game Over
In sport, the Code goes even further. It encourages organisers to exclude trans people from competitive events where they believe physical advantage or safety is at stake. But who gets to decide that? The local boxing club? Your local primary school? There’s no standard, just a vague green light to bar trans athletes based on broad stereotypes. And of course, trans women will bear the brunt.
An Orwellian Twist on “Fairness”
Let’s be clear: this is not about balancing rights. It’s about using the idea of “fairness” to systematically remove trans people from public life. The guidance tells service providers to weigh the disadvantage to trans people against others’ discomfort. But discomfort—especially when rooted in prejudice—should never be the barometer of human rights.
This isn’t clarity. It’s cowardice wrapped in policy.
What They’re Not Saying (But We Should Be)
The Code has almost nothing to say about including trans people. No strong encouragement for inclusive policies. No acknowledgement of the real-world harm this will do to trans lives. No advice on how to support trans people when they’re excluded from services essential to their health and safety.
And yet, trans people are still protected under the Act. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment remains. But the EHRC has now built a detailed manual for navigating around that protection, while maintaining the appearance of compliance.
Time to Push Back
This consultation runs until 30 June 2025. We must not let this pass quietly. The EHRC, once a proud champion of equality, now positions itself as the architect of trans exclusion. We have every right, every obligation, to challenge it.
If you’re an individual, only engage with the consultation if you feel mentally up to it. We know that reading the draft Code of Practice can be deeply distressing—it’s full of exclusionary language, legal erasure, and examples that invalidate trans people’s identities and lived realities. We do not recommend reading the Code directly unless you feel safe and supported to do so.
Instead, we strongly encourage individuals to follow guides produced by trans rights organisations, which explain the key changes and how you can respond without putting yourself through unnecessary harm. Your voice matters, but so does your mental health. If you do choose to respond, consider using template answers or joint responses developed by groups like TransActual, TACC, or other trusted organisations.
If you’re part of an organisation, respond to the consultation. Challenge the logic. Name the harm. Push the EHRC to be what it was meant to be: a defender of equality, not a facilitator of exclusion.
Because this isn’t just a Code of Practice, it’s a political statement. And it tells us, very clearly, whose rights are being prioritised, and whose are being sacrificed.