EHRC issues guidance on single-sex spaces after Supreme Court ruling
It comes after the UK Supreme Court sided with the campaign group For Women Scotland, saying that a gender recognition certificate does not entitle a trans person to be considered their acquired sex under the 2010 Equality Act. In the act, the court ruled, sex is biological.
Earlier this week, the Scottish Government delivered its response to the ruling and called on the EHRC to issue updated guidance on the impact of the court's decision.
On Friday evening, the commission did so, publishing an 'interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment'.
We have shared an interim update on the practical implications of the Supreme Court's judgment in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers: https://t.co/NgyutUBn0F pic.twitter.com/7w2wpy9EZQ — EHRC (@EHRC) April 25, 2025
The EHRC said: 'We know that many people have questions about the judgment and what it means for them. Our updated guidance will provide further clarity. While this work is ongoing, this update is intended to highlight the main consequences of the judgment.
'Employers and other duty-bearers must follow the law and should take appropriate specialist legal advice where necessary.'
The EHRC said that the ruling means that in UK law 'a trans woman is a biological man' and a 'trans man is a biological woman'.
It went on: 'In workplaces, it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets, as well as sufficient single-sex changing and washing facilities where these facilities are needed.
'It is not compulsory for services that are open to the public to be provided on a single-sex basis or to have single-sex facilities such as toilets.
'These can be single-sex if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and they meet other conditions in the act. However, it could be indirect sex discrimination against women if the only provision is mixed-sex.'
READ MORE: Scottish schools must have single-sex toilets, judge orders
The EHRC went on: 'In workplaces and services that are open to the public: trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men's facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex.
'In some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men's facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women's facilities.
'However where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use.
'Where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided.
'Where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men.'
It said schools 'must provide separate single-sex toilets for boys and girls over the age of 8', adding: 'It is also compulsory for them to provide single-sex changing facilities for boys and girls over the age of 11.'
The EHRC further said: 'Membership of an association of 25 or more people can be limited to men only or women only and can be limited to people who each have two protected characteristics. It can be, for example, for gay men only or lesbian women only.
'A women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women).'
It added: 'There are rules about when competitive sports can be single-sex, which we intend to address separately in due course.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
35 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Rachel Reeves spending review: What will be in the spending review and what does it mean for Scotland?
The Spending Review will be delivered by Chancellor Rachel Reeves on Wednesday. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Chancellor Rachel Reeves will deliver the Spending Review on Wednesday, in what is expected to lead to a significant amount of money for Scotland. While some areas with the greatest uptick in spending are devolved, the nature of the Barnett Formula means the Scottish Government will be allocated extra funds, in what The Scotsman understands will be a significant increase. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Reform UK has suggested the Barnett Formula and block funding grant from Westminster should go to be replaced with more tax powers for the Scottish Parliament The formula is used to work out the level of public spending for each of the devolved administrations. The Barnett Formula aims to be fair mechanism by giving each of the devolved administrations the same pounds-per-person change in funding. Here's what is expected to be in the spending review and what it means for Scotland. Winter fuel Scottish pensioners now face being worse off than those in England and Wales after the UK government confirmed its U-turn over the winter fuel payment. The Chancellor announced on Monday the payment, worth up to £300 for each recipient, will be restored to the vast majority of pensioners who previously received it because anyone with an income of under £35,000 a year will now get the payment automatically. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, Scotland has already created a devolved benefit of £100 for all pensioner households, which is less generous than the UK government version, potentially leaving hundreds of thousands of Scots worse off than their English and Welsh counterparts. With Holyrood being sent more money through the Barnett Formula, Scottish Labour has urged the Government at Holyrood to increase its payments. Energy UK energy secretary Ed Miliband endured a battle with the Treasury over funding, but is now expecting several big announcements. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (centre), Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar (right) and Ed Miliband, Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary (left), during a visit to St Fergus Gas Terminal, a clean power facility in AberdeenshirePicture: Jeff J Mitchell/PA Wire Most notably, the UK government has announced a £14.2 billion investment to build the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk - a project that could boost energy in Scotland, despite being based elsewhere. For Scotland, it is also understood the government is set to commit to a multi-decade, multi-billion redevelopment of HMNB Clyde, with funding in the hundreds of millions for the next few years. There are also hopes the Chancellor could finally sign off on the Acorn project. Based near Peterhead, it has been in the pipeline for years and would allow fossil fuels to continue to be burnt without, in theory, releasing harmful carbon emissions. The project is seen as key to scaling up the low-carbon hydrogen sector in Scotland and future plans for Grangemouth, but the technology has not yet been demonstrated at commercial scale. One way or the other, a decision is expected during the spending review. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Health Wes Streeting's department is expected to get one of the biggest funding boosts, which will in turn lead to more money for Scotland through the Barnett Formula. Shortly after the statement from Ms Reeves, the UK government will publish groundwork for its NHS ten-year plan. This will give an idea of the financial boost to Scotland and also what Labour might try to do to NHS Scotland if they win the Holyrood election next year.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Tell voters we will hold new indyref no matter what Westminster says
For Labour to win with a candidate they were so embarrassed by that they wouldn't let him speak in public is a low point in recent Scottish politics. But, more importantly, from an SNP perspective, it was another signal that we are not doing enough to enthuse our potential voters. The SNP have a record to be proud of in government. From free tuition to the Scottish Child Payment, we continually show that even with one hand tied behind our back we are the most progressive and efficient government in the UK. However, we have now been in power for 18 years and the public see things such as free prescriptions and the Winter Fuel Allowance as the norm and expect them to be there in perpetuity, not really understanding that if any of the Unionist parties take control of Holyrood these benefits will disappear like snow aff a dyke. READ MORE: Glasgow's new skyscraper guidelines sparks split over city's skyline future Where I believe we have failed as a government is in not making clear to the people of Scotland the real risk they run every time they vote for a Starmer/Sarwar Labour Party of seeing these things go. Have a look at the mess they've made of Wales's NHS or their continual attacks on the poorest, the elderly and the infirm in the UK. We have to get the message out loud and clear about how much money we spend mitigating the right-wing social policies of the previous Conservative government and, shamefully, of this Labour Government. There is no doubt that we are the best party to run Scotland. The alternatives simply do not bear thinking about. But, as I say, familiarity breeds contempt, and I think that's where we are in the minds of the Scottish people. The beauty is, though, that unlike the other political parties, we hold a trump card and that is, of course, the cause of independence. I have written this before and said it a million times: if we don't have independence front and centre then we simply become another party seeking power to do what it can for the people it represents under the constitutional settlement available to us. That in itself is a good thing but after 18 years in government we end up where we are. However, we know – the proof is there in our record in government – only with independence can we ensure we will be able to continue to take a different path from the rest of the UK and start to make things even better. So what now? Well for a start we have to make independence the centrepiece of every leaflet, every piece of campaign material and manifesto we deliver. We have to show the people of Scotland that independence is not just something we want for its own sake but because it's the route to a healthier, wealthier, happier Scotland – and we have to find a way to do this that bypasses the mainstream media. If last week showed us anything its that our two primary TV channels either don't understand the Scottish political make-up or they understand it only too well. How else can we explain why a Debate Night programme the night before the by-election can have three Labour representatives on it, along with a token Tory and one SNP politician? This is either rank idiocy/ignorance or a blatant attempt to assist one party out of what looked at the time like a political quagmire. You can make up your own minds which you think it is, but either way for us to expect to get a fair hearing on either of these two channels is naïve beyond belief. We must make this forthcoming Holyrood election the Independence Election. We must tell the people of Scotland that if there is an independence-supporting majority government, we will immediately inform the Westminster government that we are taking steps to hold an independence referendum. We should suggest that the best way to do this is with a Section 30 order but either way we will go ahead with one as that is what the people of Scotland have demanded. We should then go back to the Scottish Parliament, ask it to reconfirm the desire to hold the referendum and then set a date. As for the Unionist parties? Democracy is about making available the means for people to participate in the process. If they choose not to do so then they have still used their democratic right. WE then move forward based on the results of the referendum. We cannot continue with the same old, 'give us a mandate, then we'll ask for a Section 30, then we'll voice our disappointment when refused' and then wait for the next election to repeat the process. The last referendum was more than 10 years ago; even in the Unionist calendar that is a political generation. Disagree? Well, they don't. They wrote it into the Good Friday Agreement that seven years was the period between any potential referendums taking place regarding the unification of Ireland. The difference here? Fear of losing Scotland, colonial arrogance and rank hypocrisy. Regarding the indy movement, I think a couple of things have to happen. First of all,please stop pretending that the SNP don't care about independence – you have no idea how ridiculous and insulting that is. Secondly, we all need to put our differences aside and agree that the one thing that matters between now and 2026 is that we get an independence-supporting majority in the Scottish Parliament. The rest can be dealt with after that. Without independence we are not in a position to seriously change the things we want to change. And for SNP members, can we stop begging for a change of leader every time we don't get the result we want. John Swinney has been a member of the SNP and a fighter for independence for well over 30 years. He has constantly shown he knows how to win elections and is someone people tend to trust. Yet every time we lose a by-election or an opinion poll goes against us, we get a clamour for some other politician, usually an MP, who will never have run a department or chaired a parliamentary committee, to become the party leader because they are good in the media or with a witty quip at Prime Minister's Questions. It takes more than that to win a battle of this size. This is not an attack on any of my colleagues at Westminster. There are a number of very talented and able people there, Some of them have put themselves forward to stand in the Holyrood election and that is extremely welcome, but between now and the forthcoming Scottish Parliament election, every member of the SNP should be right behind John. All I ask is that you continue to pressure the leadership to ensure that independence is front and centre of all that we do. It's where it belongs. It's what we are all about.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
‘At least we're not those guys' is a strategy lacking in inspiration
Proud socialist and trans ally Christina McKelvie will be succeeded in Holyrood by a member of a right-wing and viciously transphobic Labour Party – and Reform UK came a close third with more than 7000 votes, solidifying proof that Nigel Farage's party will undoubtedly return a number of MSPs at next year's Holyrood election. Ultimately, though, the most depressing element of all was the utter lack of inspired campaigning from the two biggest parties. The SNP's campaign relied entirely on the premise of 'we're not Reform', while Labour's was all about 'we're not the SNP'. Successive front pages of the Daily Record featured messages from John Swinney telling voters that Labour can't win, so vote SNP to stop Reform, and Anas Sarwar telling voters that Reform can't win, so vote Labour to stop the SNP. READ MORE: Glasgow's new skyscraper guidelines sparks split over city's skyline future Swinney's proved to be far more embarrassing, in that it was ultimately exposed as completely untrue – Labour ended up taking the seat and Davy Russell is Holyrood's newest MSP. (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) But the messaging from both the SNP and Labour throughout this campaign was that of two parties devoid of hope or inspiration or any real meaningful ideas to actually improve people's lives. Both relied on telling voters 'at least we're not those guys'. And consequently both parties lost thousands of votes compared to 2021. Many both within and outwith the SNP have remarked in the days since the by-election that it was a mistake for John Swinney and his party to stake their campaign solely on being the anti-Reform party, and I think they're partially right. Regular readers of my column will know that I'm a strong advocate of parties on the left – particularly my own party, the Scottish Greens – tackling Reform UK head-on by offering a genuine alternative to the far-right bile and duplicitous snake oil being put out by Farage and his team. At next year's Scottish Parliament election, it'll be the Greens who are best placed to stop Reform from returning MSPs via the regional lists, and I believe we should be shouting this from the rooftops. Nonetheless, this strategy only works if the alternative on offer is one voters genuinely believe in. It only works if voters who are scunnered with mainstream parties selling them false promises election after election believe that the party they're voting for will materially improve their lives. It's not good enough to just say 'it's between us and Reform' – especially if that turns out to not even be true – you have to build an alternative to Reform that voters can be excited to get behind. It's also not good enough to just talk the talk – you have to walk the walk as well. That means being able to enact meaningful change in the Scottish Parliament (which, for smaller parties like the Greens, means co-operating with other parties and striking deals to implement our policies). But it also means living by your principles and refusing to vote for budgets and other motions which will hurt the people you're supposed to represent. It's a fine line to balance, but a crucially important one to ensure voters trust you to get things done, and that you'll also stand up for them when the going gets tough. Beyond just 'we're not Reform', the SNP had very little substance to offer in this by-election campaign. The party's billboards in the constituency celebrated the return of Winter Fuel Payments – a worthy and important policy after the payments were cut by the Labour Westminster government, but that's merely a return to what last year was just the status quo, it's not a way the Scottish Government is actually making things better for people. The SNP can't keep pointing to free prescriptions and tuition forever – voters in Scotland don't want to know how their lives are better than those of their neighbours south of the Border, they want to know how they are better today than they were five years ago. It's a genuine struggle to think of any policies the SNP has implemented in the current parliamentary term that have genuinely improved the lives of people across Scotland which didn't come from the Scottish Greens. So it's little wonder that, in a constituency crying out for change, the message of 'it's us versus Reform' failed to resonate. The fact is, Reform are on the rise whether we like it or not. We'll have Reform MSPs elected across Scotland this time next year, and the way things are going Farage will be prime minister come 2029. It's not good enough for us to just sit back and let that happen just so we can say 'we told you so' – we have to do everything we can to stop the rise of the far-right because it's no exaggeration to say that people's lives will depend on it. But the way we do that has to be by offering a genuine alternative. We need to use the full powers of Holyrood to tax the rich and redistribute wealth to fund our public services. We need to return our NHS – one of the greatest successes of socialism in the history of the UK – to its original purpose of free, publicly funded, accessible healthcare for all. We need to desperately reform the regressive council tax system to radically reduce the amount paid by ordinary people and increase that paid by land barons and millionaires. All of these are policies well within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, if only our politicians had the ambition to get on with it. Not only would they genuinely improve people's lives across Scotland, but by demonstrating competent government and a real alternative we could build a far more sturdy case for independence – the real key to unlocking the even more radical changes needed to transform our society.
