“These changes are being presented as necessary to protect the safety, rights and dignity of women. In reality, as women’s organisations, we believe these changes do nothing to address the actual causes of violence and inequality that women face everyday. Rather they are another example of our voices and experiences being exploited to justify the introduction of policies that promote restriction and exclusion.”
This statement, which represents the views of 50 women’s organisations including Amnesty Feminist Workshop, Level Up and Scottish charity Engender, was written in response to the development of the EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) updated Code of Practice on the interpretation of the Equality Act. This new code, derived from last year’s Supreme Court Ruling against the Scottish Government, has been condemned by organisations like Human Rights Watch and the Lemkin Institute, and which could have negative impacts on all women.
“We know trans-inclusive policies do not increase the risk of harm to women,” the statement continued. “This was true before the Supreme Court ruling, and remains true now. Rather, we believe the exclusion and segregation of trans people distracts from the true sources of harm and discrimination for women. We want politicians and the media to focus on the areas where women are actually most at risk – not on manufactured divisions that only lead to a more divided society.”
There were widespread calls for the matter to be put before Parliament – 165 MPs signed Early Day Motion 240, calling for disapproval of the new code. This was the single most popular motion of the past five years, and one which attracted a substantial amount of support from the front benches. Despite all of this, and as a result of government inaction, the code became statutory on 10 July 2026.
What the code will change
The new code constitutes official guidance and while the provisions are not mandatory, many organisations are likely to interpret them as such. The new code states that everybody needs to be treated as the sex listed on their original birth certificate in three key areas: service provision, clubs and associations, and sport. Any of these could potentially be made gender neutral (except where one sex is perceived as having an advantage in a sport). Where they are segregated by sex, trans women must be treated like men and trans men, by default, like women. If it is deemed to be ‘proportionate’, trans men can also be excluded from services aimed at women, but the code states it is ‘unlikely’ that it could be considered proportionate to leave a trans person without access to any service. No provision is made for non-binary people and there is no mention of intersex people, although they are also likely to be impacted by the changes.
Aside from the many ethical concerns, there are a number of practical problems. Under the Gender Recognition Act, trans people with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) have the right to have their birth certificates corrected. Under most circumstances, it is illegal to ask if someone has a GRC. The same applies to intersex people who get their birth certificates corrected. Some intersex people have had their birth certificates revised by doctors; no provision is made for this, nor for the resulting possibility that someone might not know what was on their original certificate.
Of course, most of us don’t want to have to carry our birth certificates around with us anyway, especially not just to do things like go to the toilet. The code does not establish any clear way of determining what sex a person is, but implies that it should be judged on appearance, with service providers only asking questions where this is ambiguous. In reality, many trans people don’t look ambiguous at all, and many other people do.
“Under this Code, anyone’s gender presentation can be questioned to establish who is ‘male’ and who is ‘female’ – a reality that affects any woman who doesn’t fit a narrow idea of how women are supposed to look, present or act, especially women from the global majority,” said the aforementioned women’s organisations.
The cost of compliance has also been raised as a concern, especially as much of it is likely to fall on small businesses and neither Westminster nor the Scottish Government has offered any help with this. Even large organisations have expressed misgivings. The BMA issued a statement outlining the problems it expects hospitals to encounter. Meanwhile, disabled people’s organisations were alarmed by suggested alternatives.
“We are appalled at implications from the Code that an adequate workaround is trans people using Disabled toilets instead,” said campaigning organisation Disability Rights UK. “It is a vain attempt to get two marginalised groups to blame one another for our lack of facilities, when the blame lies firmly at the feet of policymakers. We will not fall for it.”
How trans people are reacting
“I still hate the Tories for Section 28 and the lives they stole but now Labour is doing worse, inflicting segregation and suspicion on everyone. People will lose jobs and freedoms for doing nothing wrong or different,” said Lisa, one of several Scottish trans women who have spoken out to say they will ignore what they see as an inherently unjust set of rules.
“Meanwhile the Scottish government has given up and abandoned trans Scots to face right-wing lawfare and hatred alone. Not even a word of disgust at Westminster for fear of the billionaire right-wing press.
“With multiple surgeries and hormones, multiple psychological and psychiatric screenings, sworn legal statutory declaration and personal struggle, I became the woman I should always have been 15 years ago. I will not change now, cannot change now, and will never comply with this code.”
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
