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The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has published its draft guidance following the Supreme Court's ruling last month.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'.
Equality and Human Rights Commission chairwoman Baroness Falkner said it is important the code is 'an accurate interpretation of the law'(David Jones/PA)
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More detailed draft guidance was published on Tuesday, with a consultation period running until June 30, as the regulator appealed for feedback as to whether its content 'could be clearer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.'
The draft code will be presented to women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson in July (Ben Whitley/PA)
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 Herald Scotland
16 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'
"It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be "irreparably harmed" by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the "irreparable harm" factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices - Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices - Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.
The National
19 hours ago
- The National
Supreme Court's sex ruling faces legal tests – will they succeed?
Starmer's view was echoed by Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, who described the ruling as 'crystal clear' and stressed the need for 'services that are safe and appropriate and respect [everyone's] privacy and dignity'. But what was billed as legal clarity has created 'greater confusion as to what this now means in practice,' Dr Alexander Maine of City Law School, University of London, told the Sunday National. For example, guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) states that trans men must use women's toilets – from which they could be excluded for looking too much like a man. But they also cannot be left with nowhere to go. The question of which toilets trans people can use has become a battleground (Image: Pixabay) Dr Damian Gonzalez-Salzberg, an associate professor at the University of Birmingham Law School, said the guidance 'seems to go beyond what the Supreme Court has said, or at least it might not have taken the whole picture into consideration'. The guidance now faces multiple legal challenges, with allegations that it misreads the ruling, exceeds the law, and violates human rights. Rather than ending the debate on trans rights and single-sex spaces, it has triggered three court cases – pushing the issue back into litigation and the media spotlight. Challenge one: Good Law Project and human rights. THE first, a wide-reaching legal challenge, is being brought by the Good Law Project. The group has taken legal action against both the EHRC and Phillipson, the Equalities Minister, over allegations that the guidance on the Supreme Court case breaches the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Dr Maine explained that the core argument looked back to a crucial case for gender law in the UK: Goodwin 2002. This held that the 'UK was in breach of its obligations to uphold trans people's human rights, specifically the right to marry under Article 12 [of the ECHR], and the right to a private and family life,' he said. The case led directly to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Dr Maine said that, given the legalisation of gay marriage across the UK since 2002, the argument under Article 12 would no longer hold weight – but the right to privacy under Article 8 could prove crucial. READ MORE: Kelly Given: Defining women by our biology alone is chilling 'It may be that because trans people will effectively be outed if they have to use single-sex spaces that they do not appear to adhere to – for instance, a trans woman using a male space – that might go against their right to privacy,' Dr Maine said. Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said Good Law Project's argument was 'very careful' and relied on European jurisprudence. 'They suggest that it was the EHRC that misunderstood the court,' he explained. 'So that's the first ground that they're proposing – your guidance is or will be in breach of human rights if implemented because you're misreading what the law is. 'Then the second argument is, OK, if you are reading this correctly, it's still a breach of human rights, actually. They focus on what the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has been regarding trans rights. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg'This is a very, very lengthy jurisprudence that goes from the early 1980s … That jurisprudence has got to a point which is very clear that trans people have the right to live their lives in their acquired gender, which this guidance does not seem to allow you to do when, well, you don't even know where you can pee.' Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg further argued that there could be a case under Article 14 of the ECHR, which prohibits discrimination 'on any ground'. He said: 'If you're taking certain measures, you are affecting this group quite heavily, and that's one of the problems with the EHRC guidance. They said, OK, if you have mixed toilets, this might be indirect discrimination against women because women might be put in a disadvantaged situation by this general policy. 'They're not saying the same regarding trans people, and that is worrying. If you have a policy that trans people cannot use their gender's toilets, well, this will put them in a disadvantaged situation.' He added that Article 8 and Article 14 therefore represented 'two strong arguments to be made as to human rights of trans people'. Challenge two: Liberty and the consultation period. NINE days after the Supreme Court's ruling on sex, the EHRC issued its 'interim guidance' telling firms and public bodies how it should be interpreted. At the same time, it opened a two-week consultation period to advise on permanent guidance which is due to follow later this year. After concerns were raised, the EHRC extended this to a six-week consultation. However, human rights group Liberty launched a legal action calling this 'wholly insufficient'. Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg pointed to case law from the High Court, which in January ruled that an eight-week consultation period for £3 billion cuts to incapacity benefits was too short for such major changes. The door to the UK Supreme Court in London (Image: Archive)The academic further said that the EHRC was in danger of making the same mistake as the Supreme Court and excluding the voices of those most impacted – trans people. 'If you only get six weeks, you're really restricting the possibility of people intervening," Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said. "Especially when you consider the claims about how trans people were not really listened to in the Supreme Court's case. For the EHRC now to repeat this sort of mistake seems quite serious.' However, on Friday the High Court dismissed Liberty's claim, with Mr Justice Swift saying: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important. 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair." Challenge three: The European Court of Human Rights. AS things stand, there is less information available about the third legal challenge against the UK's new rules on sex and gender. However, Dr Victoria McCloud, who was the first openly trans judge in the UK before stepping down in 2024, has made clear her intention to challenge the Supreme Court's decision at the European Court of Human Rights. In the wake of the ruling in April, Dr McCloud told the BBC that she felt it breached her human rights and left her with the legal "nonsense" of being "two sexes at once". Inset: Trans judge Dr Victoria McCloud (Image: NQ) Dr McCloud also raised concerns that trans people had not been heard during the Supreme Court's deliberations on the biological sex ruling. "Trans people were wholly excluded from this court case," she told the BBC. "I applied to be heard. Two of us did. We were refused.' Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said the ruling would 'have a very strong detrimental impact on trans people'. 'It's already having that and that is clearly problematic, and in many ways also because trans people were in a very definitive way excluded from properly being heard in the ruling, which makes the situation even, even worse.' There is a clear pattern behind the three legal cases – trans people believe they were not listened to in a ruling which directly impacted their lives. Instead, they will make themselves heard in court.
NBC News
19 hours ago
- NBC News
New questions emerge from the new charges in Kilmar Abrego Garcia case
The sudden return of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia to the United States on Friday to face federal charges of smuggling migrants across the country was a messaging triumph for the Trump administration. The news deflected public attention from a series of unanimous court rulings —including a Supreme Court decision —that President Donald Trump did not have the power to unilaterally detain and deport individuals to foreign prisons without a review by a judge. And the allegations against Abrego-Garcia are damning. A federal grand jury found that the 29-year-old was an MS-13 member who transported thousands of undocumented immigrants, including children, from Texas to states across the country for profit for nine years. He allegedly also transported firearms and drugs, abused female migrants and was linked to an incident in Mexico where a tractor-trailer overturned and killed 50 migrants. Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, a lawyer representing Abrego-Garcia, said Saturday that he planned to meet his client for the first time on Sunday, but declined to further comment. A former senior law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation, said he was struck by the large amount of resources the DOJ put into investigating Abrego Garcia. 'It is odd that they would use all of these folks to go after a low-level driver,' said the official. 'Usually, we used the driver to go after the coyotes and up if we could. But they really wanted to get this guy and it looks like they found a path.' In a telephone interview with NBC News's Kristen Welker on Saturday, Trump hailed Abrego-Garcia's indictment and predicted it would be easy for federal prosecutors to convict him. 'I think it should be,' he said. 'It should be.' Multiple questions about Abrego-Garcia, the case against him, and the political fallout remain unanswered. Will Democrats pay a political price? For months, Abrego-Garcia's lawyers, his wife, and some Democrats, have denied that he was an MS-13 gang member. They generally portrayed him as a Maryland construction worker and claimed he was transporting co-workers when a Tennessee state trooper stopped him on Interstate 40 on November 30, 2022. The indictment paints a different picture: Abrego-Garcia was transporting nine Hispanic males without identification or luggage in a Chevrolet Suburban. Prosecutors allege he 'knowingly and falsely' told the trooper they 'had been in St. Louis for two weeks doing construction' and were returning to Maryland. However, license plate reader data showed that the Suburban had not been near St. Louis for twelve months. Instead, it had been in Houston where, according to prosecutors, Abrego-Garcia had picked up the men. The vehicle was not carrying tools or construction equipment, but its rear cargo area had been modified with makeshift seating to transport more passengers. The apparent strength of the government's case could reignite debate among Democrats about the risks of focusing on Abrego-Garcia's case. For weeks, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, and other Democrats emphasized that their criticism targeted Trump's decision to unilaterally deport Abrego-Garcia without judicial oversight, not a defense of Abrego Garcia himself. When Welker asked about Van Hollen, President Trump mocked the Senator and said defending the Abrego Garcia would backfire on Democrats. 'He's a loser. The guy's a loser,' Trump said, referring to Van Hollen. 'They're going to lose because of that same thing. That's not what people want to hear. He's trying to defend a man who's got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular.' Van Hollen defended his stance in a CNN interview. 'You know, I will never apologize for defending the Constitution,' he said. 'In fact, it's the Trump administration and all his cronies who should apologize to the country for putting us through this unnecessary situation.' What happened inside the Trump Administration? In an Oval Office visit on April 15, 2025, Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other Trump administration officials asserted that it was not possible for the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador as the Supreme Court had ordered. El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele mocked areporter for asking whether he would do so.'How can I return him to the United States? Like if I smuggle him into the United States?' Bukele said, sitting beside Trump in the Oval Office. 'Of course I'm not going to do it. The question is preposterous.' Trump, in turn, chided the assembled journalists, saying, 'They'd love to have a criminal released into our country. These are sick people.' Bondi said only El Salvador could decide whether to return Bukele. 'If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane,' said Bondi said. 'That's up for El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us.' Yet, in a Friday press conference at the Justice Department, Bondi described the return of Abrego-Garcia as smooth and seamless. 'We want to thank President Bukele for agreeing to return Abrego-Garcia to the United States,' she said. 'Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant, and they agreed to return him to our country.' Asked what had changed since the traffic stop in 2022, she lauded Trump. 'What has changed is Donald Trump is now president of the United States,' Bondi said, 'and our borders are again secure.' In an unusual move, Bondi also described allegations against Abrego-Garcia that were not included in the indictment. She said that co-conspirators alleged that Abrego-Garcia 'solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor' and 'played a role in the murder of a rival gang member's mother.' For decades, attorneys general from both parties and state and local prosecutors have generally accused defendants of crimes only for which a grand jury indicted them. Discussing other potential crimes has long been regarded as an abuse of prosecutorial power, risking unfair harm to defendants' reputations. A former senior Justice Department official, who requested anonymity, citing fears of retaliation, said that Bondi often speaks as a partisan Trump loyalist, not a neutral law enforcement official. 'She says the president's name every time,' said the former DOJ official. 'She talks more like a politician, stumping for a candidate than an attorney general who is out there talking independently. You can see that in the words she uses.' Why did a top federal prosecutor in Tennessee resign? The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that people close to the matter said the indictment prompted the resignation of a veteran career prosecutor who headed the criminal division at the U.S. attorney's office where the case was filed. The Journal did not name the prosecutor. However, days after Abrego-Garcia was indicted by a federal grand jury in Nashville, Ben Schrader, the head of criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's office in Nashville, resigned. 'Earlier today, after nearly 15 years as an Assistant United States Attorney, I resigned as Chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Tennessee,' Schrader posted on LinkedIn. 'It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons. I wish all of my colleagues at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nashville and across the Department the best as they seek to do justice on behalf of the American people.' :
