Helen reflects on her recent talk to students at Durham Union – you can read her account of the event on her Substack.

Read our recent report, Getting back on track, which explains how the legislative framework can enable and protect sport at a university level.

The post Sex, gender and free speech on campus appeared first on Sex Matters.

As Maya wrote last week in Times Higher Education, at the heart of the High Court judgment in the judicial review brought by the University of Sussex is an Equality Act-shaped hole. The Office for Students’ investigation into its failure to protect academic freedom and free speech on campus had been sparked by the hounding of Professor Kathleen Stock, who had been accused of hate by activists for speaking up about misrepresentations of the Equality Act. The High Court overturned the regulator’s £585,000 fine punishing Sussex for infringing on academic freedom and freedom of speech by adopting a policy in 2018 banning so-called transphobic propaganda from its campus and pledging to discipline those committing “transphobic abuse”.

To see more of our podcasts, find all our videos on our YouTube channel or subscribe to our Substack.

The post The state of free speech on campus appeared first on Sex Matters.

CUSW is the only openly and proudly single-sex society for women at the University of Cambridge. When it launched, it quickly surpassed its crowdfunding goal and became a sign of hope for women across the UK, showing that a new generation of feminists is pushing back against the harms done by trans ideology to women’s rights.

Nicole talks to Maeve, Serena and Thea about what led them to their current views on women’s rights, how they met, why they decided to start the society together and the society’s work.

You can see what CUSW is up to by following it on Substack, X/Twitter and Instagram, and by visiting its website.

To get our podcast in your inbox every week, sign up for the Friday memo.

The post Cambridge University Society of Women appeared first on Sex Matters.

We hear from women who want assurance that they won’t run into a man in the women’s changing rooms of the gym they use, or the leisure centre, or even the shop. But the service provider may fail to put their policy in writing.

Some who do claim that their policy is for everyone to feel comfortable and that this is both lawful and inclusive. But a policy allowing men into women’s facilities is neither lawful nor inclusive. So what can you do? Follow our step-by-step guide.

What does the law say?

The Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers was crystal clear that the Equality Act requires that single-sex services are provided based on biological sex. This is because in order for a space (or service) to be lawfully provided for one sex only, it must satisfy one of several criteria for “single and separate sex exceptions” in the Equality Act. These list situations in which it is appropriate to provide a service for one sex only, or for members of both sexes separately. If a service provider designates a space as for men or for women and then states in its policies that certain people of the other sex can enter, then the space is likely to fail to meet these criteria. 

Often these situations relate to bodily privacy (such as washing and changing). Once a service provider puts a sign up which labels a space as being just for women (or just for men), they have created a situation where, if someone of the opposite sex ignores the sign and makes their way into the space, this is likely to be “unwanted conduct” which has “the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”. This meets the definition of harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act, related to the protected characteristic of sex, and creating an environment in which service users are subject to such harassment is unlawful.

The widely promoted idea that people may choose the facilities that suit their gender identity, or that they “feel comfortable with”, is legally wrong. Facilities are either for one sex only or for both sexes (sometimes called “unisex” or “gender-neutral”). There can be no excuse for a service provider to let people use the facilities marked for the other sex based on their gender identity. 

Providing single-sex facilities is not generally compulsory outside workplaces and schools. But once a service provider has indicated by a sign that something is single-sex, they are relying on the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act to defend this as a lawful approach. What the Supreme Court judgment made clear is that this is legally defensible only if it is based on biology.

What should you do?

If there is a proposal to make everything unisex or gender-neutral

Write promptly to the service provider to point out why this is not the preferred solution. Since they have operated single-sex facilities for some time, they already recognise that these are a “proportionate means to a legitimate aim”. Explain to them that removing single-sex facilities is making things worse, not better: it is likely to be detrimental to everyone but especially to female users (read more about why unisex toilets are a bad idea). Neither is changing the signs from Female and Male to Cubicles and Cubicles with urinals an acceptable solution.

Use our template email to explain why this is a bad idea and ask the service provider to reconsider.

If you see a man in the women’s changing room or toilets

It is not up to individual service users to police the facilities. If another service user is using the wrong facilities, first make sure you are safe. It’s best not to address the person directly as they may have been told that they are permitted, and they could claim harassment. 

Report the issue to a member of staff and ask if someone can intervene – though this may not always be possible. 

Make a note of what happened and how you felt – this may be useful later, if you take legal action or talk to the media or to politicians. Then write a follow-up complaint and ask the service provider to clarify their policy in writing. Creating a hostile environment represents a detriment to you as a result of the policy, or lack of policy.

If facilities are labelled as single-sex – but you are not sure they are

If you think that a service provider is not following the law, you can take action.

Take action

Keep records of your engagement with the service provider and with the regulators.

Step one: find out what the policy is

The first step is to find out what the service provider’s policy is, and ideally to get it in writing. Everyone needs to know the policy so that they can all act accordingly. It’s always better to establish a clear policy before it becomes a conflict about an individual. Check the website first. If it’s not there, or not clear, send an email asking what the policy is and how it is communicated to service users and staff. 

If you can’t get a straight answer

Be persistent. Keep asking. After all, how can anyone follow a policy that has not been communicated? This applies to all staff and all service users. A person with a transgender identity needs to know what to expect, just as we all do. If you are referred to head office, keep asking. 

If you are told the policy is informal or done on a “case by case” basis

It is not lawful for a service provider to have a policy that will sometimes let some men into women’s facilities. That is a failure to adhere to the requirements of the Equality Act that permit the exclusion of one sex from the facilities designated for the other. At that point, you should move to step two: a letter that advises the service provider they are acting unlawfully.

If the policy is that the women’s facilities include “transwomen” or are on the basis of gender identity

Move to step two: a letter that advises the service provider they are acting unlawfully.

Step two: advise them that they are acting unlawfully and need to change their policy

Use our template email to ask the service provider to amend their policy immediately, and to communicate the change to all staff and service users. Write to the CEO, or use the complaints process.

If you don’t get a response, follow up. 

If they confirm that they will not change or publish their policy, it’s time to consider taking action against them.

Step three: take action against them to force them to follow the law

There are three options, and you can do one or all of them.

Option A: report them to regulators

You can report them to the regulator of the Equality Act: the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The EHRC has enforcement powers to compel organisations in England, Wales and Scotland to comply with the Equality Act. 

• In England and Wales, email regulatory.request@equalityhumanrights.com
• In Scotland, email legalrequestscotland@equalityhumanrights.com.
• In Northern Ireland, the law is different but it is still covered by the Supreme Court so it is likely that the interpretation of sex as biological is the same. The regulator is the Northern Ireland Equality Commission, which you can contact through its website.

It’s also worth contacting any other relevant regulator: 

• For licensed venues like pubs, clubs and restaurants, contact the local authority.
• If the facilities are in a space that belongs to a public body or hospital you can complain to the Health and Safety Executive – which regulates workplaces but also the health and safety of visitors to workplaces. 
• If the facilities are part of a hospital or health care service, you can also complain to the Care Quality Commission. 

Option B: involve other influencers

Ask influencers such as your Member of Parliament or local councillor to intervene. You also have the option at any stage of telling the media what has happened. 

Tell us too. In some cases, we may be able to provide support and direction. 

Option C: bring a claim to court

You may be able to bring a claim of discrimination or harassment, or both (based on sex or gender-critical belief) if you have suffered a detriment – such as not being able to use a service advertised as women-only because there were men present.

There are strict time limits for going to court. You need to make your claim within six months less one day of the event you’re complaining about. You must tell the Equality and Human Rights Commission that you are bringing a claim. 

You will need to set out the facts of how you were discriminated against and the impact on you. Keep good records of dates, times and details. Include details of:

• the facilities
• the policy
• what was said or done
• how it was said or done
• evidence of the impact of the discrimination on you, the victim (for example, were you unable to use the service, did you experience harassment?). 

Goods and services claims are often relatively low value if they are a one-off incident, so if you pay for legal advice, you’re unlikely to get that money back. This is why most people deal with small claims without a solicitor’s help using the “small claims” procedure. This is called a Money Claim (in England and Wales) and Simple Procedure in Scotland.

The first stage is to tell the person or organisation you want to take action against (the defendant) why you want to take action. You do this by sending them a letter called a letter before claim. Your letter should explain what happened to you and why you think unlawful discrimination has taken place. Say in the letter that you are giving them 14 days to reply. (Read the practice directions.)

The defendant will then write back to you to explain their position. This will help you both decide if you can find a solution to the problem without going to court – but be aware of the time limits.

To bring a claim, you will need to say how much money you think you are owed. This includes any financial losses (such as if you were unable to use the gym membership you paid for) and an amount for “injury to feelings”. In most services cases, the discrimination is likely to be a one-off incident, and the award is likely to be in the lower band of possible awards – £1,200 to £12,100. The court fees are based on the amount you are claiming. 

• The Citizen’s Advice Bureau has useful general advice.
• The Equality Advisory Support Service (EASS) helpline advises on issues relating to equality across England, Scotland and Wales. Telephone: 0808 800 0082. Open Monday to Friday 9am – 7pm, Saturday 10am-2pm. You can also email them using their online contact form.
• HM Courts and Tribunals explains what happens next. 

The defendant might offer to settle, either directly or using mediation.

The general position in civil litigation in England and Wales is that the loser pays the winner’s legal costs (“adverse costs”). But in most cases if you are bringing a small claim both sides will pay their own legal costs, and the costs are fixed. This is because the procedure is designed to enable individuals to litigate in person, without using a legal representative. You can be ordered to pay the other side’s costs if you behave unreasonably, for example, making unnecessary applications or refusing to co-operate, or by issuing a fraudulent claim.

Feedback

Tell us about your complaint, whether you succeed or hit a brick wall. We will treat it in confidence and will not share anything publicly without your consent.

It’s useful for us to track how organisations are responding to the Supreme Court’s clarification of the law, and to have an idea of compliance and non-compliance by sector.

The post Changing rooms and toilets appeared first on Sex Matters.

What does the law say?

Under the 1992 Workplace Regulations, workplaces must provide single-sex toilets for their employees, and washing facilities where required. While toilets can be single-user fully enclosed rooms, the most common approach in larger workplaces is two or more cubicles inside an enclosed room, with handwashing facilities in a shared area, all behind a door marked either Male or Female. There will often be a unisex single-user accessible toilet as well.

Where employees need to wear special clothing for work and remove more than outer clothing, employers also need to provide single-sex changing rooms, which must be sufficiently large and include seating.

The Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers was crystal clear that any space designated single-sex is solely for the use of people of that sex. This is because in order for a space (or service) to be lawfully provided for one sex only, it must satisfy one of several criteria called the “single-sex exceptions” in the Equality Act. Roughly speaking, these criteria are various situations in which including people of the other sex would be inappropriate. If an employer designates a space as “single sex” and then states in its policies that certain people of the other sex can enter, then the space automatically fails to meet these criteria. 

The Supreme Court judgment therefore means that all employers need to make clear in their policies that whenever a space is marked as being for one sex or the other, it is not for use by members of the opposite sex, regardless of claimed identity, certification or lifestyle. 

The widely promoted idea that people may choose the facilities that suit their gender identity, or that they feel comfortable with, is legally wrong. Facilities are either for one sex only or for both sexes, with no exceptions. There can be no excuse for an employer to let people use the facilities marked for the other sex. This deprives everyone else of the single-sex provision they are entitled to under the Workplace Regulations. 

The signs on the doors of workplace toilets and other facilities are health and safety signs. They should no more be ignored than signs that say not to block the fire exit or warnings about hazardous materials. 

Whose job is it to enforce this?

Your employer

Your employer is responsible for complying with the law. No individual employee should have to request that it do so, nor should anyone have to challenge someone using the wrong facilities. 

It is not enough for employers to provide men’s and women’s toilets or changing rooms. They must also ensure that the rules for use are clear and complied with by everyone.

The Health and Safety Executive is the regulator that oversees the 1992 Workplace Regulations. In response to a letter from Sex Matters, the chief executive of the HSE wrote:

“For legislation that requires an employer to provide an item or facility for their workers, HSE would consider not just whether it is actually present, but also whether an employer takes steps to ensure that it is used as they intend. For provision of men’s and women’s toilet facilities for workers, we would consider the availability of separate facilities and whether or not the employer is following a clear policy and decision-making process as to their use.”

This is unambiguous: employers have a responsibility to communicate and enforce their policies and ensure that men are not using the women’s facilities (and vice versa).

If there are men using the women’s facilities or if the policy is that anyone can use whichever facilities they prefer, or if traditional cubicled communal spaces are relabelled “unisex”, you should complain.

You could report the problem to your supervisor or your immediate manager. Employers are required to display a health and safety at work poster in the workplace that includes details of the health and safety representative. Explain the issue and suggest a solution (there should be a clear policy that male and female facilities are provided on the basis of biological sex). 

If your concern is not taken seriously, you can escalate to either your head of health and safety or human resources. Explain the same concerns that you previously expressed and why you believe your concerns have not been acted upon.

You are protected by law from suffering a detriment if you raise health and safety concerns with your employer or the enforcing authority. In fact, under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employees in Britain have a responsibility to report any matter which a person with their training and instruction would “reasonably consider represented a shortcoming in the employer’s protection arrangements for health and safety”.

Use our template emails and factsheet to raise concerns with your employer:

Your union

If you are in a trade union and you are concerned that your employer does not take the issue seriously, you can report the issue to your trade union safety representative. 

Their role is to check and follow up on management’s actions or lack of action on health, safety and environmental issues in the workplace. This includes the regulations on toilets, changing and washing facilities. Trade-union safety representatives can also report the issue to the HSE.

The regulator

If your employer does not respond by adopting or confirming that it has a clear sex-based policy, and that it will enforce that policy, you can make a report to the regulator. 

Health and Safety Executive

For health and safety in workplaces, including schools and colleges, hospitals and nursing homes, central and local government premises, factories, farms, building sites, mines and offshore installations, the regulator is the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).  

• In Great Britain, you can report employers in these sectors that do not comply with the 1992 Workplace Regulations to the HSE via its website.
• In Northern Ireland, the regulator is the HSE NI. 

Workplaces not covered by the HSE are covered by a local authority. 

Your local authority

If you work in an office, hospitality, retail, wholesale or distribution, or leisure, the relevant regulator is your local authority – your district council or local unitary authority. 

Search online with the name of your council and “health and safety at work” to find a number or online form for reporting the problem. 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued an interim update to back up the Supreme Court judgment. This states that in workplaces and services that are open to the public:

• trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex
• in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological women) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities
• however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use
• where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided
• where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men.

Organisations that fail to comply with the Equality Act 2010 can be reported to the EHRC. 

If you report your workplace to the HSE or your local authority and it refuses to act, report both your workplace and the regulator to the EHRC.

What should you do?

Many organisations are reviewing their policies in the light of the Supreme Court judgment. You may want to start by asking what your employer is doing and on what timescale. You can remind them that this is the law. There is no need to wait for guidance: in fact there could be legal risk for those whose policies do not comply right now.

Don’t be tempted to go to the press or talk about your employer on social media. Your aim should be to keep your job and to follow your employer’s established processes for raising issues like this.

Keep a paper trail of your engagement with your employer and with the regulators.

Use our template emails

Use these templates to write to your employer.

If your employer responds with excuses

We’ve written about the common excuses people are getting from their employers.

If you feel you can push further in the face of these excuses, or if you have a union or workplace representative who can do so on behalf of female employees, here is an outline of what you can say. 

Consider whether to add

(You could do the arithmetic for your specific workplace.)

If your employer says it is awaiting guidance from the EHRC

If your employer says it can’t police the toilets

If your employer says that FWS only relates to the Equality Act and not the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations

The post Workplace toilets and changing rooms appeared first on Sex Matters.

The post Template HR email on policy changes appeared first on Sex Matters.

There are no similar legal requirements for policy recalls. So unless organisations have strong leaders willing to act with bravery and integrity, they tend to withdraw bad guidance slowly and quietly, concealing their mistakes with obfuscating language rather than acknowledging that they gave the wrong advice. This leaves them and those who put their trust in them at risk of continuing the unsafe practices that had been recommended.

In March 2025 Sussex University was fined half a million pounds for a policy based on gender ideology that was clearly unlawful, reflecting guidance promoted by the Equality Challenge Unit (which later became part of Advance HE). Advance HE wrote to university vice-chancellors encouraging them to review their policies. This was overdue, but it was at least an effort to come clean. More organisations need to be doing this. 

Many organisations are now panicking about toilets as they recognise that the policies they have promoted of allowing people to use opposite-sex facilities are likely to lead to unlawful discrimination and harassment and do not comply with Health and Safety at work obligations. 

In most cases they don’t have a practical dilemma about lack of facilities to accommodate people who don’t wish to use the correct same-sex facilities – most large buildings already have at least an accessible unisex unisex option. Their problem is one of organisational culture: they have wrongly told their staff that people can choose to use separate-sex facilities based on “gender identity” and that it is “transphobic” to say otherwise. 

Now they have to recall this message. 

Why did organisations get this wrong for so long?

The organisations now scrambling to work out how to respond to the Supreme Court’s judgment have had plenty of opportunities to recognise that “trans inclusive” policies that went beyond the law were unwise. Some key warning signs they ignored were:

• In 2021 the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the Forstater case ruled that gender-critical beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society. It should have been clear that duty bearers could not continue to try to force, trick or pressure people to share “single sex” spaces with members of the opposite sex by calling them “transphobes” if they complained. 
• In 2021 the Reindorf Review commissioned by Essex University explained that the University’s policies stated “the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is”. This should have been a wake-up call. 
• In February 2022 For Women Scotland won its first case on appeal against the Scottish Ministers which made clear that sex in the Equality Act does not mean self-identified gender and that “provisions in favour of women… by definition exclude those who are biologically male”. 
• In April 2022 the Equality and Human Rights Commission published guidance for providers of single-sex and separate-sex services which recognised that it is legitimate to provide services based on biological sex, and that individual case-by-case assessment of trans people seeking to use opposite-sex facilities is not required. 
• In December 2024 the Office for Equality and Opportunity published the result of a call for input on misleading guidance. It said that policies which suggested that an Equality Act mandate that transgender people must be allowed to use opposite-sex services were a “clear misinterpretation of the law”.
• In January 2025 two government departments agreed a major out-of-court settlement with Eleanor Frances, a civil servant who had faced discrimination for raising this issue. They also promised to revise their policies and bring them into line with the Equality Act. 

Many large employers and service providers blithely continued to ignore the risk and take advice from organisations such as Stonewall and Inclusive Employers to operate based on gender identity. Some are continuing to take advice from organisations that are now telling them to respond to the Supreme Court’s clear judgment with further delay and obfuscation. 

For example, shortly after the Supreme Court judgment the for-profit consultancy Inclusive Employers wrote to its client members encouraging them to respond to the judgment by connecting with their LGBTQ+ networks, reinforcing that harassment or discrimination “based on gender” will not be tolerated, preparing for sensitive discussions with compassion and facts and stating that “true inclusion means that we all stand together and we remain committed to creating workplaces where everyone can bring their authentic selves to work every day”. What it failed to mention was that employers must make clear that people should not try to use opposite-sex facilities. 

Continued failure to be clear about what the law requires puts organisations at risk of mass discrimination and harassment claims. They need to recall their previous policies clearly and robustly and avoid shoring up misunderstanding with ambiguous messages. Individuals who have previously been wrongly told that it is acceptable to go into opposite-sex facilities and to berate others for complaining need to understand clearly and simply that this is not acceptable. This is health and safety messaging. It can be done with compassion and sensitivity towards the individuals concerned, but not with ambiguity. 

We have produced a template email to help employers explain their policy to staff.

Umbrella bodies, charities and commercial organisations that have given out bad advice should recall their advice loudly and clearly, as they would if they had been responsible for distributing an unsafe product. 

Here are some policy recalls we would like to see made more clearly, with recognition that they were simply wrong.

Government Equalities Office

In 2015 the Government Equalities Office (GEO) published guidance on providing services to transgender customers (with external lobby group Gendered Intelligence) and on recruiting and retaining transgender staff (with Inclusive Employers). It said that legislation recognises “a person’s right to determine their own gender”. This was quietly withdrawn in November 2024, when the results of the government’s call for input on misleading guidance were being analysed. 

Stonewall

Some time in January 2025 Stonewall dropped its previous definition of transphobia. This is a start, but there is much more advice from Stonewall which is not in line with the Equality Act. Organisations using Stonewall’s advice are likely to find themselves in breach of the Equality Act 2010 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Advance HE

Advance HE says that it is currently reviewing its own guidance materials, but continues to feature guidance on its website (albeit with a warning message) which suggests that universities should allow people to use separate-sex facilities based on gender identity. Any universities that follow this guidance will be breaching the law. 

NHS Confederation

Last Friday the NHS Confederation quietly removed its trans and non-binary allyship guidance from its website, making the statement: 

“As a result of the interim guidance, certain elements of our guide, particularly in relation to single-sex facilities, are now dated. The guide was based on the situation prior to the Supreme Court ruling.“

This is wrong, and insulting to women such as Sandie Peggie and the Darlington Nurses who faced discrimination and harassment based on policies that have been unlawful since they were developed. 

We have been warning Matthew Taylor of the NHS Confederation that its approach was not in line with the law since August 2022, before the NHS Confederation published its guidance. 

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 

In 2023 the CIPD published a guide to transgender and non-binary inclusion at work. We wrote to them explaining that it misinterpreted the law, and was profoundly one-sided. 

The institute updated the guidance by making it more vague, and putting it behind its membership paywall. It now appears to have withdrawn the guidance altogether and issued an interim statement telling employers to “compose clear, inclusive messages to all staff explaining the ruling, its impact, and the organisation’s ongoing commitment to inclusion and respect for all identities, beliefs and views”.

On 19th May it was still saying: “The surrounding legal landscape and consequent good practice is changing and will continue to change”. This is not true: the legislation has not changed. It was never “good practice” to allow men into women’s toilets, changing rooms and showers and to discriminate against and harass women who complained. Vaguely instructing employers to compose “inclusive” messages is inadequate advice, when the CIPD itself had promoted the idea that being inclusive meant restricting people from recognising the two sexes.

Has your employer issued a new policy or an all-staff email or statement about the Supreme Court judgment or EHRC guidance? Tell us about it! tellus@sex-matters.org 

The post It’s time for a product recall appeared first on Sex Matters.

Write to the chief executive, chief people officer or general counsel and attach our briefing.

You can adapt this template letter:

If you have written to an organisation you can tell us about it by emailing tellus@sex-matters.org.

The post Send our briefing to organisations you know appeared first on Sex Matters.

Many organisations have fallen victim to misunderstandings of the law during the past 15 years. They will now need to revise their policies urgently to bring them into line with the Equality Act.  

Among them are the UK government, the Scottish and Welsh governments and all their departments. They include public bodies such as local authorities, police forces and NHS trusts, and regulators such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Health and Safety Executive, the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Charity Commission and the Care Quality Commission. Trades unions will also need to correct their understanding of the law and update their policies. 

Umbrella bodies that have advised sectors such as AdvanceHE, the NHS Confederation, UKActive, CIPD and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations will need to make sure that advice they give their members accords with the judgment.

Here are the general principles they should think about and ten places where urgent action is needed. 

General principles

Organisations shouldn’t panic. 

The key thing they need to remember is that there are two sexes, and human beings cannot change sex. This is not an insight newly discovered by the Supreme Court, and it is not difficult to understand. It is something everyone knows, and until very recently it was not at all controversial. Most people already understand the importance of recognising sex, though some have become too scared to say it in recent years. 

The Equality Act sets out the situations, such as in the workplace and when using services, where individuals are protected against discrimination and harassment related to nine protected characteristics. Among them are “sex” (being a man/male, or a woman/female) and “gender reassignment” (being “transsexual” as the act defines it, now often referred to as “trans”). Another is “religion or belief”.

The Supreme Court ruling sets out that gender-recognition certificates (GRCs) are irrelevant to the Equality Act. 

The Equality Act generally does not tell you what you must do, but what you must not do. For example, the following policies are likely to result in unlawful discrimination and harassment (on the basis of sex and/or belief):

• requiring people to agree with the statement that “trans women are women”
• stopping people from saying that “transwomen are men”, either in general or in respect of specific individuals
• requiring people to announce their pronouns in meetings
• providing communal “female-only” spaces (such as toilets and changing rooms with the word “female” or the “woman” symbol on the door), then allowing men into those spaces
• declaring the use of ordinary words about men and women to be “transphobia”, and disciplining staff for using these words
• putting women (or men) in situations where they must undress in front of members of the opposite sex, or where members of the opposite sex undress in front of them, while telling them that this is a same-sex situation (as in police searching or medical care).

All organisations should carry out an urgent risk assessment to identify policies and training like these, which put them at risk of committing mass harassment or discrimination against staff, customers, patients and others to whom they have legal obligations under the Equality Act.

The policies most likely to create such risks are often described as “trans and non-binary inclusion” or “equality, diversity and inclusion”. They have often been adapted from templates disseminated by activist organisations such as Stonewall that have promoted misunderstanding of the law, or developed by internal LGBT+ networks. 

Such policies need to be withdrawn. 

They should be replaced with policies that are in line with the Equality Act, as now clarified by the Supreme Court. 

The new policies should make clear that: 

• the organisation recognises its obligations not to unlawfully discriminate against or harass people with regards to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also recognises that it cannot force other people to pretend it is possible for people to change sex
• the organisation will not permit anyone to use opposite-sex facilities and services, and (where relevant) will not permit men to compete in women’s sports or apply for women’s awards and other programmes for women. No negotiations will be entered into on this, and there will be no case-by-case assessments or individual exceptions. Where appropriate, unisex alternatives may be offered
• referring to the two sexes, and to the sex of individuals, is necessary when explaining and enforcing sex-based rules, as well as for other reasons such as medical care and safeguarding
• it is unreasonable to take offence at such references. 

Ten places for urgent action

In the coming weeks Sex Matters will be writing to institutions, and providing templates that people can use to write to their own institutions. In particular:

1. NHS bodies should review their policies and ensure that they recognise and record immutable biological sex. This includes in relation to single-sex hospital accommodation (the “Annex B” policy in England), single-sex facilities for staff at work, the recording of sex in NHS patient records and staff records, and the provision of same-sex care. 
2. Police forces should revise their policies and systems to ensure that they record sex accurately and that all policies that make reference to sex use this accurate information, including in relation to searching. 
3. Prison and probation services should review their policies and ensure that all individuals are housed in the correct prison estate for their sex, and (when relevant) on release. Trans-identifying prisoners may be identified as particularly vulnerable, and some may need to be housed separately from the general prison population. 
4. The Department for Education (DfE) must release revised guidance for schools which follows the same principles, and makes clear that schools should not promote unrealistic expectations to children (such as that it is possible to “live as the opposite gender” and expect other people to be forced to pretend that they have changed sex). The Scottish and Welsh governments should also revise their guidance to schools. We published a model policy in 2024.
5. Sports governing bodies should ensure their policies and guidance are based on a clear understanding of sex-based rights. All individuals should be recorded based on their sex. The women’s category is for women and girls only. Depending on the sport, there may be a men’s category or an open category. Communal changing rooms should be single-sex. 
6. The EHRC should urgently develop simple non-statutory guidance reflecting these principles. It should revise its statutory guidance for service providers, associations and employers. 
7. The Charity Commission should write to charities such as Girlguiding and Refuge that have governing documents which include a focus on women and girls, explaining that these groups must be defined in line with the law, not gender self-identification. 
8. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) should revise its policies and ensure that it recognises the two sexes clearly, both within its equality statement and when it inspects healthcare services. These inspections cover whether institutions are safe, effective, caring, responsive to people’s needs and well-led. They also cover whether institutions have effective systems in place to identify possible abuse and to prevent abuse from happening. Organisations that become muddled about the two sexes are likely to put people (especially women, children and elderly or disabled people) at risk of harm. There is nothing in the Equality Act which requires this muddle. 
9. Universities should urgently review their policies, including those concerning toilets and changing facilities, accommodation and sports as well as protections for academic freedom. They should revise policies as necessary to ensure they are not committing mass harassment or discrimination against their students and staff. They have already been put on notice by the Office for Students about academic freedom and freedom of speech in relation to the issue of sex-based rights.
10. All employers, including the civil service, should review workplace policies to ensure they are in line with both the Equality Act and the 1992 Workplace health safety and welfare regulations with regard to single-sex facilities. 

Above all, the government must be absolutely clear that sex means biological sex wherever the Equality Act is applied. We look forward to assisting with this work in order to ensure that all employers, service providers and agencies have the clarity they need to uphold the dignity, safety and privacy of women and girls.

The post What does the For Women Scotland judgment mean in practice?  appeared first on Sex Matters.