Shoppers, workers and campaigners are watching closely as the EHRC’s single-sex spaces guidance comes into force across the UK; it restricts trans people from using matching-sex toilets and changing rooms, has drawn fierce criticism, and is now the target of fresh legal challenges , here’s what that means and how organisations and individuals can respond.

Essential Takeaways

  • What changed: The EHRC code, updated after the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling on sex definitions, restricts transgender people’s access to sex-segregated facilities.
  • Legal challenge underway: Good Law Project and other claimants are pursuing judicial review and argue parts of the guidance misstate the law and breach human rights.
  • Not legally binding , but influential: The code is statutory guidance for service providers and will shape how organisations write policies, even if it isn’t primary legislation.
  • Practical worry: Campaigners warn the guidance could increase exclusion and confrontation for transgender people and comes as recorded trans-related hate crime rises.
  • What employers should do: Review policies with legal advice, consider proportionality and reasonableness, and document risk assessments and communications.

What the new EHRC code actually says, in plain terms

The headline move is simple and unsettling for many: the code treats access to single-sex services through a biological-sex lens, not identity. That means, in practice, transgender women are directed away from female-only toilets and changing rooms and transgender men from male-only facilities. The change follows the Supreme Court decision last year that narrowed the legal meaning of “woman” under the Equality Act 2010.

Organisations won’t find themselves facing an outright criminal law change, because the EHRC guidance is not primary legislation, but it’s statutory guidance. Service providers will feel the pressure to align policies , insurers, auditors and employment lawyers will read it closely. That’s why even a non-binding code can have very real effects on everyday life and workplace practice.

Why campaigners say the guidance is harmful , and what the numbers show

Trans rights groups and Scottish Greens politicians have been unequivocal: this guidance risks pushing already vulnerable people further to the margins. The timing is stark , official figures show a rise in criminal charges with a transgender aggravator, the highest on record, and many worry the guidance increases suspicion and confrontation in public spaces.

Good Law Project argues the code doesn’t just feel unjust, it misstates the law and conflicts with human-rights protections. Their pre-action letter targets passages that suggest admitting trans people into a single-sex service is likely unlawful discrimination and challenges blanket statements about mixed-sex offers alongside single-sex options. That argument centres on proportionality and fact-specific assessments, rather than rigid rules.

The legal fight: what grounds the claimants are using

The legal challenge has two main limbs. First, claimants say key passages are unlawful misstatements of the Equality Act. They say decisions must be governed by reasonableness and proportionality questions , not categorical assertions. Second, they argue that if the guidance reflects a correct reading of the Act, then it’s incompatible with Articles 8 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read alone or with Article 14, and seek a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act.

Previous case law and commentary show courts will parse both statutory text and human rights obligations closely. Good Law Project’s public messaging is blunt: they call the guidance “transphobic” and insist legal review is essential. Meanwhile, reporting from major outlets and legal blogs indicates judicial scrutiny of how the EHRC worded its code is already under way.

What employers and service providers need to do now

If you run a workplace, gym, school or council service, don’t wait. Legal analysis from firms and legal briefings suggest the sensible steps are practical and document-heavy: review existing single-sex policy wording, carry out fresh risk assessments that consider dignity, privacy and safety for all users, and take legal advice tailored to the setting.

Practically, that means sizing facilities appropriately, exploring reasonable alternatives (like private cubicles), training staff to defuse tensions, and keeping records of decisions and the reasoning behind them. Employers should also note that tribunals and courts will look for evidence of proportionality , so choices must be justified and tailored, not formulaic.

What happens next and why it matters to everyday people

The immediate future is legal skirmishing: pre-action letters, potential judicial review, and close attention from judges and regulators. If courts find the guidance misstates the law, the EHRC may be forced to revise its wording. If a declaration of incompatibility is made, that raises political and legislative questions about how the UK reconciles equality law with human-rights obligations.

For ordinary people the stakes are simple and human. Policies that sound like abstract legal texts translate into who can use which toilet, who feels safe in a changing room, and how people are treated on a day-to-day basis. That’s why employers, local authorities and venue operators should act thoughtfully , and why campaigners on both sides will keep a close eye on the litigation.

It's a small change that can make every outing feel safer or more fraught, depending on how organisations respond.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: