Gender-critical advocates have expressed approval of the recent Government guidance on single-sex spaces, considering it a significant step forward. Conversely, trans rights activists have criticized the law, describing it as chaotic and drawing parallels to policies in the United States under the Trump administration.
The updated code, released over a year after a groundbreaking Supreme Court ruling in April 2025, clarified that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to individuals identified as biological women and biological sex.
Various campaigners have reacted to the new guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and made public on Thursday. The chief executive of Sex Matters, a charity focusing on sex-based rights, emphasized that organizations now have no excuses left not to align their policies with the Supreme Court ruling.
On the other hand, the Good Law Project (GLP) argued that the approach was discriminatory and diverged from the international human rights standard. There is a divide between the two sides regarding whether the guidance will prompt more entities to establish gender-neutral spaces.
Alexandra Parmar-Yee, director of the Trans+ Solidarity Alliance, criticized the law as disordered, suggesting that many businesses might opt for gender-neutral facilities to avoid complications. She cautioned that the government’s stance could further marginalize trans individuals from public life.
Maya Forstater from Sex Matters highlighted that service providers have been cautioned that eliminating single-sex facilities and transitioning entirely to gender-neutral options could potentially lead to unlawful discrimination against women.
The guidance supports the creation of gender-neutral spaces in situations where trans individuals lack appropriate facilities. It states that forcing a trans person into a scenario where no suitable service is available to them is highly unlikely to be justifiable.
For Women Scotland, which prevailed in the Supreme Court case concerning the definition of a woman, expressed satisfaction that the guidance has been officially released. They hope this will put an end to delays in implementing the Supreme Court ruling and prompt public bodies and organizations to fulfill their obligations to women.
Jess O’Thomson, the GLP’s trans rights lead, acknowledged significant improvements from the previous draft but deemed the outcome unsatisfactory. She criticized the guidance for treating trans individuals as a separate gender, disregarding the harm caused and human rights principles, pledging continued opposition to this discriminatory approach.
