Auto Amazon Links: No products found. Blocked by captcha.
A challenge brought against the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) guidance on the use of public and workplace toilets and changing rooms by transgender individuals has been dismissed by a High Court judge. The ruling emphasized that businesses and service providers must adhere to the law, seek expert advice when necessary, and apply practical judgment in managing such facilities.
The EHRC initially released interim guidance last April but retracted it six months later. The guidance advised that when single-sex facilities are required, usage should be restricted to individuals of the same biological sex. Specifically, it stated that a trans woman—defined as a biological male who identifies as a woman—should use either gender-neutral or male toilets, rather than female-designated ones.
The Good Law Project (GLP), a campaign group, challenged the guidance, arguing it was both legally incorrect and overly simplistic. Additionally, three anonymous individuals voiced criticism of the guidance aimed at employers and public services, including hospitals, shops, and restaurants. However, Mr Justice Swift rejected the claim that the guidance effectively mandates transgender people to use toilets aligned solely with their biological sex, stating, “I do not consider this is a reasonable reading of the guidance.”
The judge affirmed that the EHRC’s decision to issue and subsequently withdraw the guidance did not involve any legal error. This guidance followed a Supreme Court ruling in April 2025, which clarified that under the 2010 Equality Act the terms “woman” and “sex” pertain to biological sex. The court also dismissed arguments from the GLP that directing transgender individuals to gender-neutral toilets might constitute “less favourable treatment.” While refusing the GLP’s application for judicial review, Mr Justice Swift invited all parties to submit views regarding whether an appeal should proceed.
Friday’s judgment highlighted a key conclusion from the Supreme Court that services used by both men and women would not be considered single-sex. The judge criticized the polarized rhetoric in legal arguments suggesting either a necessity for transgender people to use facilities corresponding to biological sex or that women’s rights automatically override those of transgender individuals. He urged facility providers to comply with the law but be “guided by common sense and benevolence rather than allow themselves to be blinkered by unyielding ideologies.”
Expressing concern over the ruling, Jess O’Thomson, lead on trans rights at GLP, said the group was “deeply concerned about many aspects” of the judgment but noted it revealed dangerous misrepresentations of the law. Meanwhile, Sex Matters, a gender-critical campaign group that made submissions during the November hearing, welcomed the ruling. Its chief executive, Maya Forstater, called on the government to issue definitive guidance “without delay,” stressing, “The law is clear. There was never any excuse for the government, public bodies, regulators, charities or businesses to delay in implementing the Supreme Court judgement.”
Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, chair of the EHRC, also supported the judgment, underscoring the commission’s role in protecting the rights of individuals under the Equality Act, including those defined by sex, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment. She emphasized that a shared and accurate understanding of the law remains fundamental to this mission
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
Auto Amazon Links: No products found. Blocked by captcha.