UK equality watchdog: Single-sex toilets must exclude transgender people

Single-sex toilets and changing rooms in England, Wales and Scotland must exclude transgender men and women, according to a new code of practice from the equalities watchdog.

But the long-awaited guidance also says businesses and service providers must offer practical alternatives, such as gender-neutral toilets, for people who do not wish to use services based on their biological sex.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) document outlines how public bodies, businesses and other service providers should apply the April 2025 Supreme Court ruling that sex under the Equality Act refers only to biological sex.

The guidance will be seen as a step forward for gender-critical campaigners, who have long argued that trans women should be excluded from women-only services. Critics, however, fear it will further discourage trans people from using public spaces.

Trans advocacy groups had hoped amendments to the code made by the EHRC in April, after government feedback, consultations and additional legal advice, might result in a less blanket exclusion.

The guidance suggests clubs and associations can remain trans-inclusive by opening themselves to several protected characteristics at once, for example women or men and trans people.

In healthcare, where mixed-sex accommodation is unavailable, trans patients must be placed on the single-sex ward corresponding to their biological sex. However, the code states it would not be proportionate to exclude a trans man from obstetrics and gynecology outpatient services based solely on objections from female patients.

The guidance clarifies that if a service provider admits a trans person to a service aligned with their lived gender, that service can no longer be described as single-sex and the provider faces a “very likely” risk of legal challenge.

EHRC Chair Mary-Ann Stephenson said: “The supreme court was very clear … if you are providing separate toilets for women and men, that has to be on the basis of biological sex.”

Stephenson suggested people had “got caught up in a hyperfocus on which toilets can trans women use.”

“It would take a lot of the heat out and we might be able to provide some solutions if we could take a bigger step back and say ‘lots of us have different needs in terms of accessing toilets’,” she added.

She called for a “wider conversation about how we make that work in practice,” citing services for women escaping violence, where providers often offer a mix of communal and self-contained accommodation that could be offered to women with teenage sons or trans women.

Campaign groups continued to review the 340-page document Thursday evening, with early responses reflecting ongoing divisions over interpreting the Supreme Court ruling.

Trans+ Solidarity Alliance Director Alexandra Parmar-Yee called the guidance “a section 28 moment for this Labour government” and said it was “worryingly similar to a US bathroom ban condemned by the UK Foreign Office in 2016.”

“The law here is a mess, and clearly many businesses will just go gender neutral to avoid the headache, but the government risks pushing trans people yet further out of public life,” Parmar-Yee said.

For Women Scotland, the gender-critical group that brought the original case to the Supreme Court and criticized the time taken to review the code, described this as “a significant milestone in ensuring women’s rights are upheld and protected across the UK.”

Co-founder Susan Smith said: “Hopefully, this will put an end to the unjustified excuses and delays in implementing the supreme court ruling. There is now no reason for public bodies and organisations to evade their responsibilities to women.”

The updated code of practice for service providers, associations and those delivering public functions – still in draft form – was presented to Parliament by Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson on Thursday afternoon. MPs have 40 days to consider it before a final order comes into force across England, Scotland and Wales.

In a written statement, Phillipson said the draft code’s content on sex and gender reassignment had “changed substantially” due to the Supreme Court judgment, and thanked the commission for ensuring the document was “accessible and provides a wide range of examples for duty bearers.”

Many businesses raised concerns that the required changes could undermine inclusion and be unworkable, particularly in hospitality where venue sizes, space and building age vary drastically.

The code offers an example of a shopping center renovation. Management recognized that only male and female toilets would disadvantage trans users, potentially causing safety risks and distress if they had to use toilets for their biological sex. “The service provider therefore decides to also provide toilets in individual lockable rooms with hand basins, which can be used by people of either sex.”

This cost falls on the business. When the Equality Act 2010 was passed, the impact assessment estimated first-year costs could exceed £300 million.

Another example involves a community advice center with single-sex toilets extending its accessible toilets to trans people. The code advises monitoring whether this arrangement negatively impacts both trans and disabled users. Disabled rights campaigners have previously told the Guardian they watched “in horror” as trans people face similar toilet segregation and exclusion from public spaces.

The guidance states that while it is unlikely to be “practical or appropriate” to question an individual using single-sex facilities about their sex, it may be legitimate if concerns arise about that person’s “physical appearance, behaviour or concerns raised by other service users.”