Not A Phase’s statement in response to the EHRC’s Code of Practice

On the 16th of April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that for the purposes of the Equality Act, definitions of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’, and ‘woman’ referred only to an individual’s sex as noted at birth. No trans+ people were consulted in the process of this ruling, and the outcome was deemed fully erasive of the experiences of trans+ people (less than 1% of the UK’s population) and intersex people (up to 1.7% of the population).

50,000 medics of the British Medical Association responded to the ruling, advising it was both ‘scientifically illiterate’ and ‘biologically nonsensical.’

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was tasked with drafting a new Code of Practice which provides guidance on how the new definitions would be implemented in the Equality Act, which outlines the protection of human rights in the UK (such as in cases of discrimination and harassment).

At least two drafts were then submitted and rejected – one receiving backlash from hundreds of firms across the UK who warned the proposed guidance on spaces such as bathrooms was ‘unworkable’ and would cause ‘significant economic harm.’

Today, a final draft has been laid before Parliament by the Women & Equalities Minister.The top line changes impacting trans+ people:

• Trans+ people are now treated like a third gender, meaning Service Providers (with regard to bathrooms and changing rooms) are to provide a third space or a gender-neutral space, if separate sex spaces are provided (as opposed to mixed sex).
• Trans+ people are advised to only use bathrooms and gendered spaces aligned with their sex as noted at birth, if separate/single sex spaces exemptions are relied upon.
• This is regardless of whether someone has a Gender Recognition Certificate.
• If a venue doesn’t have a gender-neutral or third space which trans+ people can use, they could be accused of discrimination.
The revised draft has been laid before parliament by the Minister for Women & Equalities. MPs and peers have 40 days to raise any concerns.
If there are no objections, the guidance becomes statutory.

We condemn this outcome. The forthcoming media cycle reporting on this topic is likely to be very intense for our community. Please be gentle with yourselves and take any time you need away from your phones, news, and social media.

Please also remember:
• The code is important, but it does not change the law.
• There is no criminal law prohibiting trans+ people from gendered spaces such as bathrooms.
• There are no laws allowing harassment in bathrooms.
• Gender reassignment is still considered to be a protected characteristic, meaning trans+ people are legally protected from harm in all settings.
• Venues are not obligated legally to become gender police.
• Venues are not obligated legally to have gendered spaces (such as gendered bathrooms). Going fully gender neutral is an option.

With trans+ people making up less than 1% of our society, the efforts made to make public life for our community more challenging are gravely misplaced.

The majority of this discourse is the result of a moral panic, combined with misdirected concerns around women’s safety. All data shows women are more unsafe due to men they already know in their own homes, than they ever have been in gendered spaces.

Due to this, a removal of trans+ people from public life would not result in an improvement in women’s safety – making the lives of trans+ people harder will not make the lives of women easier.