Swap the sex
Where a service user is a TiF
And ask youself why terms are swapped out...
My edit tracking
Italic = orginal opinion
Itslic&Underline = term/word swaps
Bold&Underline = my swap
Is it a play on words and slight of hand to place the men above women?
The Equality Act and single-sex spaces in the homelessness sector
[ note the pretty no value picture of 3 big sholders little heads is missing]
Published January 2026
In April 2025, the Supreme Court made a ruling that Sex, for the purposes of the Equality Act refers to biological sex, meaning a person’s sex assigned at birth.
Observed sex
The female / male genitatlia are observed and this observation is recorded.
》》
In April 2025, the Supreme Court made a ruling that Sex, for the purposes of the Equality Act refers to biological sex, meaning a person’s biological birth sex assigned at birth.
The ruling has implications for spaces in the homelessness sector and the impact on how trans, non-binary, inter-sex and gender non-conforming people can access and receive support.
Author bias as "the impact" for "single sex" is based on an assumption that all organisations are running mixed sex services and calling them single sex.
The obligation is with the organisation so the impact on how trans, non-binary, inter-sex and gender non-conforming people can access and receive support and how their access is arranged is controled by the Decision Makers
Plus
trans "is" a PC of GR
non-binary, inter-sex and gender non-conforming are not likely to be PC as they fail the process to be the other sex test.
》》
The ruling has implications for single-sex spaces in the homelessness sector and the may impact on how trans, non-binary, inter-sex and gender non-conforming people can may access and receive support.
The implications of the ruling are still being considered, with ongoing legal challenge and the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) interim guidance being withdrawn in October 2025 and new guidance sitting with Government for review before it can be laid before Parliament.
A Rather Important Header is missing here:
》》
WE ARE NOT PROVIDING LEGAL¹ ADVICE
(¹so dont try to sue us or the many organisations who contributed to this document.)
The following information is not legal advice (and should not be treated as such).
Needs to be big and bolded text
》》
The following information is not legal advice (and should not be treated as such).
It provides an overview of the current circumstances, implications for the homelessness sector and principles and practices to consider, with a view to ensuring that every vulnerable person experiencing homelessness is safe and can access the services they need.
This page is discussing the lawful provision of services and the implications for the homelessness sector and therefore legal financial and reputation risk need to be embedded into thr principles and pratices.
》》
It provides an overview of the current circumstances, implications for the homelessness sector and homelessness sector and principles and practices to consider while providing lawful services, with a view to ensuring that every vulnerable person experiencing homelessness is safe and can access the services they need.
For support on terms and definitions, please refer to Stonewall’s list on LGBTQ terms
》》LINK REMOVED
Organisations offering (or considering offering) single-sex services and/or changes to current provision, may want to seek independent legal advice based on the specific circumstances of their service.
Acknowledgements
With thanks to the many organisations who contributed to this document.
The Equality Act
The Equality Act 2010 is the UK law that protects people from discrimination based on nine protected characteristics.
》 🤳 《
[Note the lack of text being replaced by small pictures]
》》
• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex;
• sexual orientation.
The basis of equality is that all services should be available to everyone, but the Act acknowledges that universality can in particular circumstances cause discrimination to occur (in the sense that it disadvantages) one or more of the nine protected groups. The Act therefore allows for exemptions to prevent indirect discrimination.
Not correct
[Hummm.... Blatant twist of actvism or unqualifed staff appointment?]
The Act allows direct discrimination when exemptions are used.
It is 100% a "Yes But" = No situation. Yes its always mixed sex but if you can qualify as a female only single sex space no men are allowed.
》》
The Act therefore allows for exemptions to prevent indirect discrimination to discriminate on the basis of specific Protected Characteristics e.g. biological sex
In relation to Sex, one exemption is that single-sex spaces are permitted (not mandated) if certain conditions are present, allowing the exclusion of one sex.
The organisation must high level test at a group level with 2 groups biological female and biological male and testing ignores individual level needs.
》》
In relation to Sex, one the exemption is that single-sex spaces are permitted (not mandated) if certain conditions are present, allowing the exclusion of one sex if provided certain conditions are present, justify the exclusion of the other sex.
In the case of many homelessness services, this could mean single-sex spaces for women which exclude men, but may also include male-only spaces which exclude women.
Note the langage switch from "2 humans" to "2 sexes"
》》
In the case of many all homelessness services which apply the sex exemption, this could will mean female single-sex spaces for women which exclude men, but may also include and male-only single-sex spaces for men which exclude women.
The definition of Sex
Since 2010 there has been debate about the definition of Sex in relation to the Equality Act. This was one of the driving forces behind the For Women Scotland case and the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The ruling is not new law, but legal clarification: ‘sex’, for the purposes of the Equality Act, refers to biological sex, meaning a person’s sex as assigned at birth.
Observed sex
The female / male genitatlia are observed and this observation is recorded.
》》
The ruling is not new law, but legal clarification: ‘sex’, for the purposes of the Equality Act, refers to biological sex, meaning a person’s biological birth sex as assigned at birth.
The definition of Gender Reassignment
Although the definition of Sex has now been clarified, it has thrown up further debate about how this works alongside another protected group under the Equality Act, Gender Reassignment.
The languge use of "Protected Group" so a homogeneous group not Protected Characteristic of the group and of the individual in that group (Sex and Gender Reassignment) when looking at direct and indirect discrimination.
》》
Although the definition of Sex has now been clarified, it has thrown up further debate about how this works alongside another protected group Protected Characteristic under the Equality Act, Gender Reassignment.
This is the language the law uses to talk about trans and non-binary identities.
[Hummm... the group exclusion of inter-sex and gender non-conforming is.... ]
trans "is" a PC of GR
non-binary, inter-sex and gender non-conforming are not likely to be PC as they fail the process "to be the other sex" test.
》》
This is the language the law uses to talk about trans and non-binary identities.
Under the Act, someone is protected from discrimination, harassment and victimisation if they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process to change their sex.
The test is the final objective but it is not to "change" rather recognising the limits of biology and culture to assign from one to the other while recognising limits.
Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
Sex and Gender
As can be seen from the above text, if Sex is defined as a person’s sex assigned at birth, and cannot therefore be changed, there is a legal tension between Sex and Gender Recognition, since Gender Recognition allows for a person to change their sex.
Change of words changes the meaning
》》
As can be seen from the above text, if Sex is defined as a person’s biological birth sex assigned at birth, and cannot therefore be changed, there is a legal tension between Sex and Gender Recognition, since Gender Recognition allows for a person to change their sex. reassign the person's legal sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
For example, a trans woman may change their sex on official documentation, such as a birth certificate or passport, from male to female.
Language choice is swapping the "danger" on to a "third party" (women)
[Humm.. Also note the original texts pronouns where later "they" morphs to "she" while females remain "they/their" ]
》Dear Reader
Language adjustment to allow you to examine any Penis bias will follow below 《
》》
For example, a trans woman transman may change their her/his sex on official documentation, such as a birth certificate or passport, from female to male.
However, this same trans woman is now defined as their sex assigned at birth (male) in relation to Sex under the Act.
The transman is not defined as her sex assigned at birth rather by her biological (female) birth sex in relation to Sex under the Act.
Note how ^ the choice of added words skews understand down through the opinion : The ruling is not new law, but legal clarification: ‘sex’, for the purposes of the Equality Act, refers to biological sex, meaning a person’s sex as
》assigned at birth. 《
》》
However, this same trans woman transman is now defined as their her/his biological birth sex assigned at birth (male female ) in relation to Sex under the Act.
There is also a potential tension in practice, which may happen in the following situation:
[Hummm... indeed if the female/male service user chooses to lie...]
A woman (assigned female at birth) and a trans woman (assigned male at birth) both want to access a single-sex accommodation service.
Note how ^ the choice of added words "A@B" skews understand
》》
A woman (assigned female at birth) man (biological male) and a trans woman (assigned male at birth) transman (biological female) both want to access a single-sex accommodation service.
Prior to the court ruling, inclusion practices would generally support the trans woman to access the single-sex space in the homelessness sector.
[Humm .. penis bias?]
Were females housed in male only spaces or did the Decision Maker not want risk and responsibility?
》》
Prior to the court ruling, inclusion practices would generally support the trans woman transman to access the male single-sex space in the homelessness sector.
With the court ruling, a trans woman’s right to access the single-sex space has been brought into question and as Sex has been defined biologically, the trans woman may not have a legal right to access a single-sex space for women.
The ruling was if it is single sex it can not have any members of the other sex and may even lawfully exclude some members of the same sex.
[Hummm... Odd how that TiF bit of discrimination in the ruling is not covered]
》》
With the court ruling, a trans woman’s transman's right to access the male single-sex space has been brought into question and as Sex has been defined biologically, the trans woman transman may not have a has no legal right to access a male single-sex space for women men.
However, the definition of Sex does not diminish the legal protections trans and non-binary people have under the Equality Act and exclusion may also have legal implications.
[Humm... the group exclusion of inter-sex and gender non-conforming people continued 😁]
trans "is" a PC of GR
non-binary, inter-sex and gender non-conforming are not likely to be PC as they fail the process to "be the other sex" test.
》》
However, the definition of Sex does not diminish the legal protections trans and non-binary people have under the Equality Act and exclusion may also have legal implications.
Homelessness Services
There are many kinds of homelessness services which may be affected by the changes described above, particularly those currently described as single-sex, some of which may include:
》》
There are many kinds of homelessness services which may be affected by the changes described above, particularly those currently described as single-sex but fail the legal test need to rely on the Sex exemption, some of which may include:
Day services
• Single-sex days or times to access the day service
• Single-sex toilet/shower facilities
Night shelters
• Single-sex communal sleeping facilities
• Single-sex toilet/shower facilities
Accommodation services
• Single sex accommodation services
• Single-sex toilet/shower facilities (rooms may be en-suite in some services)
• Single-sex communal areas such as kitchen/TV room
• Single-sex floors/clusters
Support services
• Services like Housing First or floating support service offering gendered support (e.g. domestic abuse specialists)
》》
• Services like Housing First or floating support service offering gendered mixed sex support (e.g. domestic abuse specialists)
Activities and groups
• Single-sex activities such as arts and crafting
• Single sex groups such as counselling/therapy
Following the Supreme Court ruling, many organisations delivering single-sex services will be concerned with how they can continue to support trans people.
》》
Following the Supreme Court ruling, many organisations which were relying on the lawful discrimination exemption delivering services described as single-sex services will be concerned with how if they can continue to support trans people of the other sex.
It is important to note that prior to the court ruling, trans people could be excluded from single-sex spaces based on the Act’s exemption of a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The excluding "passing" females from female only services is "new"
》》
It is important to note that prior to the court ruling, trans people of the other sex could be excluded from single-sex spaces based on the Act’s exemption of a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
For example, it could be deemed necessary to exclude trans people to achieve a valid service objective, such as to ensure that cisgender women feel safe to access refuge accommodation.
》》
For example, it could be may have been deemed necessary to exclude trans people males to achieve a valid service objective, such as to ensure that biological women feel safe to access refuge accommodation.
The court ruling does not impact on this.
However, for many services who operate inclusive policies, the question is whether trans people can be included in single-sex spaces and unfortunately, there are no risk-free routes to navigating this, for example:
》》
However, going forward for many services who operate inclusive mixed sex policies as they fail the sex discrimination exemption test, the question is whether trans people members of the other sex can be included in single-sex spaces and unfortunately, fortunately, there are no risk-free routes to navigating this, for example:
Scenario one
A single-sex service makes the decision to include a trans woman, but another cisgender woman accessing that service or a cisgender woman who has made the decision to self-exclude from that service decides to pursue a claim for discrimination on the basis that the service is not single-sex.
[Hummm... spot the non-bepenised added word?]
[Odd how the "passing" female bit of discrimination in the ruling is not covered]
》》
A female single-sex service makes the decision to not use the Sex exemption to lawful discriminate against males and include a trans woman male,
but 》 another《
cisgender biological woman accessing that service or a cisgender biological woman who has made the decision to self-exclude from that service decides to pursue a claim for discrimination on the basis that the service is not single-sex has a case so provide male single sex services too.
Scenario two
A trans woman is excluded from the single-sex service and is placed into an all-male service instead, where she is treated unfairly and experiences intimidation and bullying.
[Humm... spot the single-sex v bepenised]
[ Humm.. awkward as a "passing" female can be lawfully excluded from female spaces ]
》》
A trans woman transman is excluded from the male single-sex service and the Organisation chooses not to apply the Court ruling on "passing" females by excluding her from female single sex spaces and is placed into an all-male female single-sex service instead, where she she/he is treated unfairly and experiences intimidation and bullying may have a case as alternative provision should be provided or extra controls put in place to minimise the possibility of such an occurance.
The trans woman could make a claim on the basis that she has suffered discrimination based on gender reassignment.
》》
The trans woman transman could make a claim on the basis that she she/he has suffered discrimination based on gender reassignment and Sex as "passing" is subjective so the organsation could incorporate a mixed sex service too
Although the above scenarios focus on the experiences of cisgender women and trans women, the same also applies to trans men.
[Bless .... someone found 50% of the population covered under the GR PC ]
》》
Although the above scenarios focus on the experiences of cisgender biological women and trans women transwomen, the same also applies to trans men transmen.
Based on the court ruling, a trans man (assigned female at birth) would also be affected in terms of the services they can access, for example a service defined as single-sex for men could exclude trans men, where a single-sex service for women could include trans men, although this may raise some concerns regarding their perceived gender in a women-only space.
Again note the word swaps in language to sub-divide the spaces into 3
Based on the court ruling, a trans man (assigned female at birth) transman (biological (female) birth sex)would also be affected in terms of the services they she/he can access, for example a service defined as male single-sex for men could must exclude trans men transmen, where a female single-sex service for women could may include or exclude trans men transmen although inclusion is always lawful, exclusion may also be lawful where this may raise some concerns regarding their her perceived gender sex in a women-only female single-sex space.
Principles and Practices
To navigate the complexity of these changes and to stay true to the sector’s commitment to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, there are several principles and practices to hold in mind.
While focused on the lawful provision of services
Principles
• The court ruling on the definition of Sex is not specifically about trans or non-binary people and should not lead to the exclusion of trans and/or non-binary people from services. However, it does mean that the sector may need to approach inclusion differently.
》》
• The court ruling on the definition of Sex is not specifically about trans or non-binary people and should not lead to the exclusion of trans and/or non-binary people from services. However, it does mean that the sector may need to approach inclusion provision of single-space services differently.
• Services must consider the communities they are serving and ensure that everyone’s needs are met. All vulnerable people experiencing homelessness deserve safe and effective housing and support.
• Any changes to policies and procedures should be done in line with legal advice and the EHRC’s guidance (when published).
》》
• Any changes to policies and procedures should be done in line with the Organisations legal obligation and obtaining legal advice is recommended while awaiting and the EHRC’s guidance (when published).
• A focus on safety, dignity and respect should be at the heart of all communication, decision-making and support.
Practices
For services currently defined as ‘single-sex’, it is possible that the court’s ruling on the definition of Sex will mean the inclusion of trans people (based on their gender identity) could lead to a claim for discrimination (as described above) and the following should be considered:
[Humm... Yes indeed .. the SC will decide to overturn a current ruling that biological sex did not mean biological sex and .....that a human penis can be reclassified as female genitalia]
For services currently defined as ‘single-sex’ which are actually mixed sex and also directly discriminating against the other sex, it is possible that the court’s ruling on the definition of Sex will mean the inclusion of trans people (based on their gender identity) or exclusion of people based on their Sex (biological (female/male) birth sex could lead to a claim for discrimination (as described above) and the following should be considered:
Etc: :
• All decisions and changes should be carefully considered and robustly recorded so that there is a clear and defensible rationale should a claim for discrimination be pursued.
• Be very cautious about making immediate changes to someone’s housing and support services and a robust plan should be in place to transition the person into alternative, suitable services. If the single- sex exemption is not relied on or not appropiate Services must be available to trans and non-binary people to ensure there are no experiences of discrimination, harassment or victimisation.
• Local Authority commissioning teams may need to consider the options available for providing suitable alternatives, such as spot-purchases and working closely with By and For organisations on developing additional services, where needed.
• The court ruling does not prevent service providers from offering an inclusive mixed-sex service along side single-sex service or space to people who live as women (or men) and services for women (or men) as long as single-sex provision could be is not described as trans-inclusive. If a decision is made to change a service from single-sex to trans-inclusive mixed-sex then this should be carefully considered, co-produced where possible, and with clear communication to everyone who accesses that service.
• The tensions described above can lead to a policing of someone’s sex/gender, often based on appearance, or through difficult and traumatic questions. It can also create difficulties for people who are gender non-conforming (often cisgender). It is essential that there is not an over-emphasis on the need to scrutinise or if there is a need to verify someone’s biological birth sex assigned at birth and that any conversations around someone’s eligibility to access a service are held privately and confidentially.
• Mixed-sex services are often principally used and set-up to meet the needs of men but there are often women accessing those services and to better meet women’s needs, including trans women and non-binary people, services should consider gender-informed approaches if a single-sex ememption is needed. In mixed-sex services everyone should have access to appropriate facilities.
• It is more crucial than ever to consider trauma-informed and person-centred care for trans and non-binary people everybody accessing services and services should work to find the best solutions for an individual’s needs.
Resources: