A growing number of Labour MPs are expressing significant reservations regarding the practical application of new guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on how organisations should interpret the Supreme Court's ruling on biological sex within the Equality Act. A Commons motion, signed by 135 MPs – 69 of whom are Labour – calls for the code of practice, approved last month, to be blocked due to widespread concerns over its potential impact on transgender individuals.
The guidance stems from a Supreme Court ruling last year which clarified that 'sex' in the Equality Act refers solely to biological sex. Consequently, the EHRC's code suggests that transgender people may not be permitted to use single-sex facilities aligned with their lived gender, such as toilets and changing rooms, and in some cases, not even those aligned with their biological sex. Instead, it advocates for the provision of gender-neutral 'third spaces' where feasible.
However, the feasibility and practical implications of these rules have become a major point of contention. During a recent session of the Commons Women and Equalities Committee, the EHRC's chair, Mary-Ann Stephenson, and chief executive, John Kirkpatrick, faced intense questioning on the operational aspects of the code. Kevin McKenna, a Labour MP and former nurse, highlighted particular anxieties regarding the care of transgender patients in hospitals, questioning the availability and suitability of gender-neutral side rooms, which are often scarce and reserved for clinical necessities.
Following the committee hearing, Mr McKenna stated his fear that the code 'may not survive contact with reality', describing it as 'not ready, not practical, and not safe to implement'. He warned that it could lead to 'terrible situations for trans people and their friends and families' without enhancing safety for others. Several MPs also reported being contacted by trans constituents who are actively avoiding medical care due to fears about ward placements, with one trans man reportedly stating he would 'rather die than be put on a women’s ward'.
Further concerns have been raised about the guidance's emphasis on 'common sense' when individuals decide whether to challenge someone using a single-sex space. One Labour MP criticised this approach as 'completely subjective', fearing it would expose organisations to legal challenges if they make incorrect judgements. While the motion itself is unlikely to prevent the guidance from becoming law – requiring a government-granted vote which has been declined – it serves as a clear indication of significant backbench pressure for ministers to address these concerns, potentially through new legislation.
The 40-day period for the code to be laid before Parliament concludes early next month, after which it is set to come into effect. The broad spectrum of Labour MPs signing the motion, spanning different ideological wings of the party, underscores the depth of concern regarding the practical and human implications of the EHRC's guidance.
Source: Parliamentary records, Labour MPs