TL;DR
- The UK High Court will fully hear a case against the EHRC’s controversial trans guidance in November.
- The guidance, accused of enabling discrimination, would restrict trans access to single-sex spaces.
- Good Law Project argues the EHRC is misinterpreting the Supreme Court ruling on sex and gender.
- Critics warn businesses following the guidance risk legal trouble.
- Trans rights advocates insist: the law hasn’t changed—trans people still have protections.
Court Battle Brews Over Trans Rights Guidance
It’s official: the UK High Court is setting the stage for a legal throwdown over the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) eyebrow-raising new guidance targeting trans access to public spaces. Mark your calendars for November 2025, when the full case brought by the Good Law Project will finally get its day in court—and not a moment too soon.
The EHRC sparked outrage earlier this year when it proposed so-called updates to how single-sex spaces should be managed. Translation? Trans people would be expected to show ID just to pee, and in some cases, be denied access altogether—even to spaces aligned with their birth sex. Critics dubbed it a “bigot’s charter,” and honestly, that’s putting it mildly.
This all came in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the FWS v Scottish Ministers case, which controversially leaned into the idea that “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act means “biological sex.” Cue: panic, protests, and policy proposals that read more like power plays than protections.
Legal Pushback Gains Ground
Good Law Project isn’t having it. The organization came out swinging, calling the guidance not only premature but legally unsound. Jess O’Thomson, their community outreach lead, warned that “services and businesses could find themselves in hot water” if they rush to adopt the EHRC’s interim rules. Their advice? Hold fire.
“The EHRC’s guidance could be leading people into legal error,” O’Thomson cautioned. “Trans people still have human rights protections in this country, and at Good Law Project, we plan to defend them.”
They’ve got reason to be concerned. Reports suggest that some institutions have already started tweaking policies in line with the guidance, even though it’s not law—yet. And if you ask EHRC chair Kishwer Falkner, she thinks the whole package could be legally binding within the next seven or eight months.
But let’s be clear: the law hasn’t changed. Despite what fearmongers might be spinning, there’s no magical clause that strips trans people of their rights overnight. Baroness Brenda Hale, former president of the Supreme Court and not exactly known for mincing words, clarified during a recent event: the ruling doesn’t ban gender-neutral loos. In her words, “there is no such thing as biological sex.” Preach, Your Ladyship.
Why It Matters
This isn’t just legal hairsplitting—it’s about dignity, safety, and the basic human right to exist in public spaces. For the trans community, especially trans women, the EHRC’s proposals feel like an institutional permission slip for discrimination. If allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent that anyone not fitting someone else’s narrow definition of gender can be turned away or humiliated.
And here’s the tea: if businesses think they’re just “playing it safe” by jumping on the EHRC train early, they might want to lawyer up. Misinterpreting complex legal rulings to justify exclusion could land them in court just as fast.
This case will be a defining moment—not just for UK law, but for how the nation sees and treats its trans citizens. And in a climate where trans lives are too often politicized, dismissed, or erased, a strong legal rebuttal could be the reminder everyone needs: human rights aren’t optional.
Let’s just say, we’ll be watching the High Court this November with popcorn in one hand and a Pride flag in the other.