EHRC deletes single-sex space guidance amid trans rights legal case

[IwantToRetire]

GUIDANCE alleged to have had a "devastating" impact on trans people has been removed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

The interim guidance, which faces an ongoing legal challenge from Good Law Project (GLP), was published after the Supreme Court's ruling that "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.

Just nine days after the ruling, the EHRC issued guidance stating that trans people could not use toilets which align with their acquired gender, but also that they could be excluded from using toilets which align with their birth sex if they look too much like the opposite gender.

It was removed on Wednesday, to be replaced by a statement which states: "The draft code was submitted to the Minister for Women and Equalities for approval on 4 September 2025. The next stage is for a draft code, as approved by her, to be laid before Parliament.

"On 15 October 2025, we [the EHRC] wrote to the minister to ask for: an update on that process; the revocation of the 2011 version of the code, as it is now out of date in various respects.

Full article at https://www.thenational.scot/news/25546244.ehrc-takes-devastating-guidance-trans-rights/ and at https://archive.is/XLlBG

Thread about EHRC letter at https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5428082-ehrc-letter-to-minister-for-women-and-equalities-about-government-action-on-our-draft-code-of-practice

None of this changes the law

The devastation only seems to go one way.

Deleting the interim guidance looks petty. Next month's Judicial Review hearing can still go ahead based on it. And it's needed - the 2011 guidance is now worse than useless.

Does anyone know how usual it is for a Minister to take so long to lay open draft statutory guidance once it's been prepared? I'd got the distinct impression from previous press reports that this was a formality. But now it looks as if the ministry can take any amount of time, havering about impact assessments and hawking it around for input from interested parties (including the legislatures of the other home nations, one of which was the losing party!).

Didn't we already have the consultation?

Hasn't the guidance been removed because it will be altered following the consultation. The next stage is approval of the final guidance not another consultation.

The EHRC has also removed the interim update from its website that was published after the Supreme Court's judgment. Duty-bearers should continue to take specialist legal advice, as they did before, on what they need to do under equality and human rights law. They should use the new code once Parliament has approved it.

The law still hasn't changed.

The lack of guidance means organisations are more likely to end up falling foul of the law one way or another and therefore its more likely that another case will end up back in court and the organisation will be found to be in the wrong.

Its a farce.

The Guardian are claiming that the government is claiming that the delay is because the EHRC haven't done an impact assessment. I have a nasty suspicious mind, but I would be interested in what others think about this.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/15/equalities-watchdog-bridget-phillipson-transgender-guidance

An impact assessment?

The SC did that

Each organisation will do that for its specific situation - this is what "case by case" actually means

What would the EHRC assess?

That's what I thought.

Farce yes - but also quite ominous as when published it was very much this is what you should do following the Supreme Court ruling.

Presumably thinking the Government would just nod it through.

What are organisations meant to do in the mean time.

Makes me feel they have withdrawn in because they are no longer confident if will be nodded through.

And if that is because the Government (under pressure from TRAs) are saying it leaves those with a GRC in limbo, then the answer isn't to withdraw the guidance for 99.9% of the country, but ammend the wording of the act which contradicts the court ruling.

Looks like we are in for a long fight to even get a Supreme Court judgement implemented because it supports women's sex based rights, and men (whether TRAs or MRAS) dont want women to have their rights as women upheld by the legal system.

I can't blame anyone for feeling cynical about this.

@Easytoconfuse

More misleading reporting from Peter Walker at The Guardian.

Yesterday in the House of Lords - Baroness Falkner said the government had only asked for the Impact Assessment and other documents last Friday and that the documents had been sent to the government this Monday. So clearly the delay isn't caused by the EHRC.

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a9dbcc8c-20b4-4413-93a2-305467e8570e

Baroness Falkner speaks at 15:48.

The EHRC guidance and delay is discussed by the Lords from 15:38 onwards.

It can have no effect on the law.

'Impact assessment' is gibberish. Did the government say that or was that the product of the Guardian? They have long had a strained relationship with reality and the truth.

If you explained to someone in simple terms that a published math paper meant that 2+2 = 4 what kind of Impact assessment is even possible? What would it matter if 99% of people were affected by it.

There is no legal way out of applying the law here aside from completely rewriting it and that would face significant huddles.

Then again in cynical mode...

This is 2025 so they can of course just ignore the law. Tell other people to ignore the law and just arrest anyone who complains.

So we're not out of the woods yet.

I am more troubled by the EHRC doing this deletion as it is quite dramatic.

They have a section which is about updating progress.

They could have just said (in a polite way) we have written to the Government to ask why the Guidelines haven't been ratified.

They could even have said their is an attempt to Judicially Review the decision but permission has not yet been granted to do this. (which is it was given might be the time to withdraw it)

But why now.

I really wonder what else is going on.

It must either have been some legal advice they received or something else, as they felt confident enough to challenge the Government in the letter made public.

I wondered if it could be related to Baroness Falkner's contract ending. She finishes on 30th November. She may not care about challenging the government if she is on her way out as they've treated her quite shoddily.

Impact assessment - impact on trans people. Government is looking for a get out. It doesn't want to go down in history as having breached human rights and so even though Starmer has sometimes verbally endorsed the idea, he now wants to distance labour from it and throw EHRC under the bus and Labour will probably save face by replacing Starmer.

Looks like we are in for a long fight to even get a Supreme Court judgement implemented because it supports women's sex based rights, and men (whether TRAs or MRAS) dont want women to have their rights as women upheld by the legal system.

Bring it on <polishes gardening implements>

I'm fuming that Philipson is stalling this to help her deputy leadership challenge.

Is there a chance the law could get amended if the anti women parties, Greens, Lib Dem get more MPs at next GE?

Given Reform are heading for an absolute majority - no.

Meant to link to this - https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast

I think the issue at this point is why the EHRC has deleted the interim guidelines.

That is much more significant and if anything given Labour (especially the TRAs) more reason to think that could ignore it.

It is really strange.

They haven't explained.

That just wrote a letter to the Government referring to the earlier guidelines being out of date as though the interim guidelines never existed.

Why?

They are the advisory group.

Deleting guidelines they had previously been adament organisers should use is really significant.

Inexplicable.

I posted this on your other thread:

The updated code of practice is accurate and comprehensive guidance on how services, public functions and associations should comply with the Equality Act and supersedes all previous guidance from the EHRC. This includes the 2011 code of practice which the EHRC is calling for the minister to revoke as of now. The EHRC has also removed the interim update from its website that was published after the Supreme Court's judgment. Duty-bearers should continue to take specialist legal advice, as they did before, on what they need to do under equality and human rights law. They should use the new code once Parliament has approved it.
I think they're saying the draft code is correct so FFS get on and approve it/revoke the 2011 code. Meanwhile duty-bearers are on their own, or can consult their lawyers, fwiw.
It's a hissy fit.

__

It's confusing, but I think they're saying the current draft code is definitive as far as they're concerned. So if HMG won't approve it, there's nothing. A howling void.

It makes a kind of sense, I think:
The law is the law- now, and people should be obeying it - now. Normal practice would be to obey the law and take legal advice if you're not sure what the law is saying.

But since this is a tricky area, the custom has been to help people out by issuing illustrative guidelines. A sort of FAQ. But the guidelines aren't the law, they're just the EHRC being helpful. The law would exist even if there weren't any guidelines.

The 2011 guidelines are out of date in some respects but weren't retired immediately because the new Interim guidelines were just that- a quick and dirty update. (Perhaps there was stuff in the old guidelines that hadn't altered and was still useful?). That was ok if you had a short term situation, and one where people were being sensible and co-operative and using the Interim update where appropriate.

But it's gone on and on. The government haven't got on with signing off the new complete guidelines; and lots of people who should know better are abusing the Interim status of the update and the existence of the out of date guidelines to drag their heels and ignore the law.

So the EHRC have effectively said that until the proper current guidelines are issued, you are on your own with the law (just as you are with other legal matters where Guidelines are not usually issued). And you need to obey the law now.
And if the Government wants organisations to have guidelines to help them (which is cheaper and more efficient than having to consult a lawyer about typical situations), then it needs to get on and approve them.

That's my take, anyhow. I may be wrong.

It's confusing, but I think they're saying the current draft code is definitive as far as they're concerned. So if HMG won't approve it, there's nothing. A howling void.

I think the opposite! ie the interim guidelines are no longer there to refer to. There are only the old guidelines pre Supreme Court, and this mean organisations should get legal advice because published guidelines are out of date, but a court ruling has happened.

This means an organisation can say I am following the guidelines as published on the EHRC web site.

Which is madness.

For the EHRC not to reference the Supreme Court ruling is just mind boggling.

Added to which I think the Labour Government can exploit it to fudge the implications of the court ruling in terms of the EA.

The new draft has also been published, which is kind of a hint to ignore the 2011 code. I think @Heggettypeg 's explanation makes sense. Also I think the EHRC website says the 2011 code is out-of-date (I will check)