I thought this was worth sharing as a potentially welcome, rational response to the EHRC guidelines. It's not perfectly in line with what we as feminists want, but it is way better than the toddler-tantrum responses I have seen elsewhere:
https://transfiguredmission.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/faqs-for-churches-following-ehrc.pdf
It is clearly written from the point of view of wanting to be as inclusive as possible, within the scope of the law as it stands.
You cannot expect or require trans people to use the ‘wrong’ toilet, therefore you will need sufficient mixed sex / all gender toilets. You must be careful not to simply repurpose the disabled toilet as this could amount to unlawful disability discrimination.
If you have single rooms / cubicles with a lockable floor-to-ceiling door the simplest way to cater fairly to everyone is to make them all unisex – or most of them if you have lots. If you currently only have two – one labelled M and one F - you must do this.
This seems rational to me. The document goes on to highlight that for the most part, everything that reasonably can be unisex/open to all should be - and describes that things which should be legitimately single sex might include
- whether women are likely to be in a state of undress
- whether there will be limited ability for women to leave or to choose an alternative service
- whether the service is provided a result of, or connected with, male violence against women
- whether the physical differences between men and women are relevant to the experience of the service and put women at a particular disadvantage
Most single-sex church groups would not be ‘necessary’ under this analysis. You cannot require trans people to attend the group that corresponds to their ‘birth sex’
There's plenty not to like - I wish they didn't refer to things that are legitimately single sex as being for cis women - obviously cis is inappropriate for large numbers of women who have just been getting on with their lives for a many decades just existing as best they can under a patriarchy without the luxury or priviledge of the leisure to work out if they have a gender identity, and also many things in the above bullet-pointed list would be very much appropriate for people who are female but identify with a masculine or non-binary identity, so a better document would highlight benefits to female people of all gender identities rather than using cis. In the toilets section the authors clearly know, by implication, that gender neutral toilets are only legitimate if they are fully enclosed with floor-to-ceiling walls and doors, but fail to explicitly mention this or to draw attention to the well-known health and wellbeing detriments that arise when people are taken ill in such facilities. And the fact that they signpost to the Good Law Project at the end is disappointing.
But despite all this I thing its a welcome example of how reasonable organisations of good intention might do their best to find a reasonable way forward within the law, rather than just trying to ignore the law and carry on prioritising male people's wishes over female people's needs.