EHRC says people could be asked for birth certificates to prove biological sex
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published its draft guidance following the Supreme Court's ruling last month.
The code of practice, which is out for public consultation for six weeks, covers a range of topics including trans people's participation in sport and use of toilets.
The commission has tripled the length of time for feedback, from an original proposal of two weeks, meaning it is expected to be presented to women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson in July rather than June.
The regulator said the consultation has been extended 'in light of the level of public interest, as well as representations from stakeholders in Parliament and civil society'.
In the wake of April's Supreme Court ruling that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, the commission had issued interim guidance, saying trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals, with the same applying for trans men using men's toilets.
More detailed draft guidance was published on Tuesday, with a consultation period running until June 30, as the regulator appealed for feedback as to whether its content 'could be clearer or more helpful'.
The guidance says people can be asked to confirm their birth sex so long as it is 'necessary and proportionate for a service provider, those exercising public functions or an association to know an individual's birth sex to be able to discharge their legal obligations'.
It cautions that any such question 'should be done in a sensitive way which does not cause discrimination or harassment'.
The commission adds that if there is 'genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a question about birth sex, then a birth certificate could be requested'.
It notes that if a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), it might be that they have an amended birth certificate in their acquired gender, and that in the 'unlikely event' further enquiries about their biological sex are needed, any 'additional requests should be made in a proportionate way which is discreet and sensitive'.
Elsewhere, the draft code says trans people can be excluded from competitive sport 'when necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition', and gives an example of how some services might be able to adapt to 'offer toilets in individual lockable rooms to be used by both sexes'.
The code states that a service provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men 'is not a separate-sex or single-sex service' under the Equality Act and could amount to unlawful sex discrimination against those of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it.
Commission chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner said there has been an 'obvious' demand since the court's ruling for 'authoritative guidance' for a range of providers from businesses to hospitals to sports clubs.
She said: 'It is important that our code is both an accurate interpretation of the law and clear to those who use it.
'So we want to hear views on the clarity of these updates and urge all interested parties to respond to the consultation over the next six weeks. We will consider every response carefully and amend the draft code where necessary.
'People with protected characteristics should never be discriminated against or harassed when using a service. Where services are provided on a single-sex basis, that needs to be done in a way which is consistent with the law, which protects the rights of all service users and which ensures everyone is treated with respect and dignity.
'It's vital that service providers know what they need to do to comply with the law, and that service users have confidence that every provider is doing so.'
Some trans rights groups have raised concerns about the practical implications of the Supreme Court ruling.
Baroness Falkner acknowledged this is a 'complex area' of law and 'bears on the rights of people with the protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment'.
She added: 'We know that there are strongly held views across our society, both about how the law should be interpreted and whether it reflects the right balance between those rights. So, if everybody's rights are to be protected – as the Supreme Court confirmed the law intends – service providers and their legal advisers need help to navigate these challenges.
'The consultation launched today will help ensure our services Code of Practice is a useful and authoritative guide. Please tell us if you think it could be clearer or more helpful.
'That way, whether you're a shop owner or the chair of a local sports club, the manager of a hotel or a hospital, an HR professional or a solicitor, you will have guidance to follow so you can be confident that you're upholding the law.'
Campaign group the Good Law Project (GLP) last week announced it has taken the first step in a legal challenge against the watchdog, claiming the guidance is 'wrong in law'.
But Maya Forstater, from gender-critical campaign group charity Sex Matters, said the commission's guidance is clear.
She said: 'The draft EHRC guidance reflects the law as clarified by the Supreme Court, so there can be no more excuses for failing to follow it.
'Its clear language and calm, factual tone are a welcome antidote after weeks in which trans lobby groups have sought to present the ruling as complicated and dangerous.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Indigenous lawyer to head Mexico's supreme court after direct election
An Indigenous lawyer from the state of Oaxaca is set to become the president of Mexico's supreme court following the country's unprecedented elections to appoint its entire judicial system by popular vote. Activists hailed the election of Hugo Aguilar, a member of the Mixtec Indigenous group, as a symbolic victory – while noting that Aguilar, who topped the poll of candidates for the supreme court – had long since shifted from his own roots as an activist to a figure much more closely aligned with the state, and involved in controversial mega-projects such as the Maya Train. '[Aguilar] is a brilliant lawyer,' wrote Joaquín Galván, a defender of Indigenous rights in Oaxaca, on X. 'But while they say we the Indigenous are represented in him, in reality he has spent almost 20 years operating for the government, not for [Indigenous] peoples.' Sunday's vote was the result of a radical reform by the governing Morena party, which said it would reduce corruption and impunity in the judicial system by making it more responsive to popular opinion. But the concept was challenged by critics who said it would destroy the separation of powers and could flood the judicial system with unqualified candidates backed by opaque interests. Many career judges chose not to run. Roughly 2,600 posts, from local magistrates to supreme court justices, were up for grabs. Given the sheer number of positions and candidates involved, critics had warned that a low turnout was likely. Parts of the opposition also called for a boycott. In the event, just 13% of Mexicans voted, a record low in a federal election. 'The turnout was frankly meagre,' said Javier Martín Reyes, a constitutional law professor at Mexico's Unam university. 'The government has tried to argue that voters were demanding this reform. But this has been proven false.' Sheinbaum described the process as 'a complete success', adding: 'Mexico is the most democratic country in the world.' There was evidence of illegal party interference in the elections through the distribution of cheat sheets telling people how to vote, largely with the names of the government's favoured candidates. All nine of the new justices on the supreme court were included on such cheat sheets. Most have ties to the governing party, meaning it may no longer act as a check on Morena's executive power, as it has in the past. Aguilar is among them, having served as a senior official at the National Institute for Indigenous Peoples during the government of Sheinbaum's predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. One of Aguilar's campaign promises was to promote justice for Indigenous communities and the environment – yet under López Obrador he coordinated consultations for mega-projects such as the Maya Train and the Interoceanic Corridor, a train-and-port system to connect trade between the Pacific and the Atlantic, that were riddled with irregularities. Two other candidates with previous ties to Morena are María Ríos, who served as legal counsel to López Obrador when he was president, and Irving Espinosa, who was an adviser to Morena lawmakers. Three sitting justices who decided to run were all re-elected: Lenia Batres, Yasmín Esquivel and Loretta Ortiz. All three were initially nominated by López Obrador and have largely voted in favour of Morena governments. It is not certain how justices with past ties to Morena will vote, but if they band together they could give Sheinbaum a decisive majority on Mexico's highest court. Even those with more independent profiles might fear to go against the executive, said Martín Reyes. 'Morena and its allies have a supermajority, they can change the constitution at any moment, start political trials, remove [the justices'] immunity,' said Martín Reyes. 'These people will live under the threat of sanction.' The National Electoral Institute will continue to release results over the next week, including for the powerful new disciplinary tribune, tasked with supervising judges, and the top electoral court. Preliminary results suggest Morena may have significant influence in the first of those, too. 'These elections were a failure and a success,' said Martín Reyes. 'A failure in terms of democratic participation – but a success in terms of political capture.'
Economist
an hour ago
- Economist
Meet SCOTUSbot, our AI tool to predict Supreme Court rulings
This June may be the most harried for the Supreme Court's justices in some time. On top of 30-odd rulings due by Independence Day, the court faces a steady stream of emergency pleas. Over 16 years, George W. Bush and Barack Obama filed a total of eight emergency applications in the Supreme Court. In the past 20 weeks, as many of his executive orders have been blocked by lower courts, Donald Trump has filed 18.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Tech giant SAP asks US Supreme Court to reconsider rival's antitrust win
June 4 (Reuters) - Europe's largest software maker SAP ( has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision that said the technology giant must face a lawsuit by U.S. data technology company Teradata accusing it of violating antitrust law. SAP in a petition, opens new tab made public on Tuesday said a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California that reinstated Teradata's lawsuit will threaten American tech innovation if it is left in place. Teradata accused SAP of violating antitrust law by 'tying' sales of business-planning applications with the purchase of a key SAP database that can perform transactional and analytical functions. Teradata makes a rival analytics database. In its filing at the high court, SAP said the integration of software products can often benefit consumers and 'represent an effort to 'compete effectively,' rather than to stifle competition." SAP declined to comment. Teradata did not immediately respond to a request for comment. San Diego-based Teradata filed its lawsuit against SAP in federal court in California in 2018. The two companies once had a joint venture, but SAP terminated it after developing its own analytics database. SAP won in the district court, but the 9th Circuit revived Teradata's case in December. The appeals court said there was material dispute between the companies that a jury could decide. If the Supreme Court takes the case, the justices could rule on which legal standard judges should use to weigh antitrust tying claims. Two key legal standards guide how judges resolve whether conduct restrains competition: the 'per se rule,' where alleged conduct is presumed illegal, and the 'rule of reason,' where judges balance between anticompetitive effects and a defendant's procompetitive justification. The 9th Circuit, using a version of the 'per se rule,' applied too stringent a standard in evaluating Teradata's claims, SAP told the justices. SAP said the appellate court's ruling clashed with how a Washington federal appeals court resolved a landmark antitrust case against Microsoft in the 1990s. The case is SAP SE et al v. Teradata Corp, U.S. Supreme Court, unassigned. For SAP: Kannon Shanmugam of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison For Teradata: No appearance yet
