
NHS must change policy on allowing trans people on single-sex wards, head of equalities watchdog says
The NHS must change its policy of allowing transgender people to be on single-sex wards aligned with their gender identity following the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a "woman", the head of Britain's equalities watchdog said.
On Wednesday, judges at the UK's highest court unanimously ruled that the definition of a "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to "a biological woman and biological sex".
Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said the ruling was "enormously consequential" and ensured clarity.
She vowed to pursue organisations that do not update their policies, saying they should be "taking care" to look at the "very readable judgment".
On single-sex hospital wards, Baroness Falkner told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the NHS will "have to change" their 2019 policy, which says transgender patients are entitled to be accommodated on single-sex wards matching how they identify.
She said the court ruling means there is now "no confusion" and the NHS "can start to implement the new legal reasoning and produce their exceptions forthwith".
2:10
Women's sport and changing rooms
The baroness also said trans women can no longer take part in women's sport, while single-sex places, such as changing rooms, "must be based on biological sex".
However, she said there is no law against organisations providing a "third space", such as unisex toilets, and suggested trans rights organisations "should be using their powers of advocacy to ask for those third spaces".
In 2021, Baroness Falkner came under criticism from trans and other LGBTIQ+ organisations after she said women had the right to question transgender identity without fear of abuse, stigmatisation or loss of employment.
Some EHRC staff resigned in protest of the body's "descent into transphobia", while others defended her, saying she was depoliticising the organisation. Her four-year term was extended for a further 12 months in November by the Labour government.
Public bodies must look at equality laws
Health minister Karin Smyth said public bodies have been told to look at how equality laws are implemented following the ruling.
She told Anna Jones on Sky News Breakfast: "Obviously, public bodies have been asked to look at their own guidance.
"And we will do that very, very carefully."
She said the court's ruling was "very clear" about women's rights being defined by sex, which she said "will give clarity to companies".
But she warned against public bodies making statements "that may alarm people", telling them to take their time to look at their guidance.
The ruling marked the culmination of a long battle between campaign group For Women Scotland and the Scottish government after the group brought a case arguing sex-based protections should only apply to people born female.
1:48
Not a triumph of one group over another
Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be read as "a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another".
He said the Equality Act 2010 "gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender".
Ms Smyth said those who identify as transgender "will feel concerned" after the ruling but said the Gender Recognition Act still stands and gives people who identify differently to the sex they were born in "the dignity and privacy of presenting differently".
She said NHS policy of having same sex wards remains, but did not mention the 2019 transgender policy, and said the NHS has been looking at how to support both transgender men and women.
Scotland's First Minister John Swinney said the Scottish government "accepts" the judgment and said the ruling "gives clarity".
2:12
Trina Budge, director of For Women Scotland, said it was a "victory for women's rights" and said the case was "never about trans rights" as transgender people are "fully protected in law".
"It means there's absolute clarity in law regarding what a woman is. We know for sure now that we are referring to the biological sex class of women," she told Sky News.
"And that when we see a women-only space, it means exactly that. Just women. No men. Not even if they have a gender recognition certificate."
Transgender woman and Scottish Greens activist Ellie Gomersall said the ruling "represents yet another attack on the rights of trans people to live our lives in peace".
Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman added: "This is a deeply concerning ruling for human rights and a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
PETER HITCHENS: The private school pupils refused NHS care show we're becoming a People's Republic by stealth - ruled by blank-eyed bureaucrats
We are becoming a People's Republic by stealth. The warnings are increasingly urgent, but is anyone listening? Last weekend The Mail on Sunday reported a deeply disturbing fact. An NHS bureaucrat had refused therapy to a young boy, saying, 'We are unable to see this child as we do not provide a service to school-age children who attend an independent school. We are only commissioned to provide a service to the mainstream schools.'


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Thousands who did not pass California bar exam get a chance to practice, for now
June 11 (Reuters) - More than 3,300 people who failed or withdrew from taking California's troubled February bar exam will have the option to work under the supervision of an experienced attorney while they wait to take the attorney licensing exam, the Supreme Court of California ruled on Wednesday. The court approved, opens new tab a request by the State Bar of California to extend an existing provisional licensure program enacted in 2020 when the bar exam was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which allows examinees to work under supervision for two years as they prepare to retake the test. An estimated 3,340 would be eligible for provisional licensure, according to the petition submitted by the state bar. The court on Wednesday also granted the state bar permission to 'impute' performance test scores for those unable to complete that test section due to technical problems—a process that involves using submitted answers to project their performance on sections that were missing. The state bar estimates that imputing performance test scores will result in 79 more people going from failing to passing and bump up the overall pass rate from the current 63% to 65%—which is nearly double the average 35% rate in recent years. More than 200 people moved from failing to passing earlier this month when the state bar signed off on a separate grading change, which moved the overall pass rate from 56% to 63%. Some state bar trustees have expressed concern about some of the exam's proposed remedies and the higher pass rate, citing the bar's duty to protect the public from unqualified lawyers. At the state bar's request, the California Supreme Court already lowered the raw score needed to pass the exam and imputed scores for both the multiple-choice and essay portions of the February exam. The state bar did not immediately respond on Wednesday to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's latest rulings but has previously said it "would never take any steps to detract from its public protection mission.' California's February bar exam—the first not to use any components of the national test—was plagued with technical and logistical problems, including software crashes and interruptions from proctors. That exam has sparked several lawsuits, including at least two filed by test takers and one filed by the state bar against the testing company that administered it. State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson said she will step down in July, citing the bungled rollout of the new exam. While it approved the bulk of the state bar's petitions, the California Supreme Court denied a request to explore proposals for admitting attorneys licensed in other states without requiring them to take and pass the state's bar exam. That would require a change in state law, which requires bar passage for admission, the court noted. Read more: Hundreds of California bar exam-takers move from fail to pass with new scoring California's February bar exam mess is costing millions to clean up


Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
How can ‘sanction' mean two opposing things?
Sir Keir Starmer said 'he could 'not imagine' the circumstances in which he would sanction a new referendum' on Scottish independence, the Times reported the other day. The Mirror said Amazon 'has agreed to sanction businesses that boost their star ratings with bogus reviews'. So we find sanction being used with completely opposite meanings: 'give permission' and 'enact a penalty to enforce obedience to a law'. The latter sense was extended after the first world war to cover economic or military action against a state as a coercive measure. That is the use we daily find applied to action, or the lack of it, against Russia. The diverging meanings both go back to the Latin noun sanctio, deriving from the verb sancire 'to render sacred', hence 'inviolable'. Such a sanctio came to mean a decree, as in that obscure beast of history, the pragmatic sanction, which looks neither pragmatic or like a sanction. The phrase had a good run for its money, though, labelling a decree attributed to St Louis of France against the Papacy in 1268 and a decree by Charles III of Spain in 1759, granting the crown of the Two Sicilies to his son. I would describe as an anxiety dream the thought of having to write about either. Here, pragmatic meant 'to do with affairs of state', a development of the ancient Greek word that, via Latin, also gives us practical. In English pragmatic acquired the meaning 'practical' only in the mid 19th century, allowing the Americans C.S. Peirce and William James to harness pragmatism to describe a kind of philosophy. As for sanction, it is now also deployed to label the removal or reduction of social benefits. In February this year, 5.5 per cent of claimants were being sanctioned. There is, too, the architect of Dublin's Heuston station (often misprinted as Euston station): Sancton Wood (often misprinted as Sanction Wood).