Ethical Obligations Towards Transgender People Following the Equality Act Draft Code of Practice 2026

Introduction

The publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission's (EHRC) Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations (2026) has generated significant debate concerning the rights of transgender people in the United Kingdom. The guidance follows the UK Supreme Court's decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers (2025), which held that the protected characteristic of sex within the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex for the purposes of the Act. The draft Code consequently provides revised guidance on the operation of single-sex services and facilities, including toilets, changing rooms, refuges, hospitals, sports facilities and other public accommodations (EHRC, 2026).

While legal compliance is an important concern for organisations,ethical responsibilities extend beyond the minimum requirements of law. Organisations operating in public, private and voluntary sectors must consider how their decisions affect the dignity, wellbeing, inclusion and equal treatment of transgender people. This essay argues that although organisations may be legally required to manage access to some facilities differently under the revised guidance, they continue to have significant ethical obligations to ensure that transgender people are treated with respect, fairness and humanity. Ethical practice requires organisations not merely to avoid unlawful discrimination but actively to create environments that safeguard dignity, minimise harm and promote social inclusion.

The Ethical Basis of Equality

Ethical approaches to equality generally rest upon the principle that all human beings possess equal moral worth. This principle appears in numerous philosophical traditions, including Kantian deontological ethics, human rights theory and contemporary theories of social justice.

From a Kantian perspective, individuals must always be treated as ends in themselves rather than as means to an end (Kant, 1785/1993). Respect for persons therefore requires recognition of transgender people's autonomy, identity and capacity for self-determination. Even where legal rules create restrictions on access to particular facilities, treating transgender people with contempt, humiliation or disregard would violate this fundamental ethical principle. This is a principle that is at the heart my ethical thinking, and is (in general) how I operate with regard to other people.

Similarly, human rights approaches emphasise the inherent dignity of every person. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948) grounds human rights in the "inherent dignity" and equal rights of all members of the human family. Ethical decision-making therefore requires organisations to consider not only legal categories but also the lived experiences and vulnerabilities of those affected by policy decisions. The UDHR was created at a time when the world was in a state of shock after the horrors of WW2. It stands today as an aspiration and a warning. When ethical considerations are disregarded, the damage to human flourishing is enormous.

The principle of equality does not necessarily imply identical treatment in all circumstances. Rather, it requires that differences in treatment be justified, proportionate and respectful. The ethical challenge for organisations is therefore to balance competing rights and interests without devaluing the humanity of any group. Let alone transgender people.

The Position of Transgender People Under the Equality Act

Importantly, the Equality Act 2010 continues to protect the characteristic of gender reassignment. The draft Code confirms that protection from discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the basis of gender reassignment remains part of the statutory framework. Service providers and public authorities remain subject to duties not to discriminate against transgender people and not to subject them to degrading or hostile treatment. (GOV.UK)

The revised guidance primarily concerns the operation of single-sex services following the Supreme Court's interpretation of the term "sex". However, the existence of legal provisions concerning single-sex services does not remove organisations' obligations towards transgender service users. Indeed, the draft Code continues to recognise gender reassignment as a protected characteristic and emphasises that organisations should consider proportionate responses and alternative arrangements where appropriate. (GOV.UK)

This distinction is ethically significant. A legal determination regarding eligibility for particular facilities does not justify social exclusion, disrespect or indifference towards transgender individuals.

Respect for Human Dignity

Perhaps the most important ethical obligation is the preservation of human dignity.

Dignity involves recognising a person's worth irrespective of social status, identity or legal classification. For transgender individuals, dignity is often closely connected to recognition of their gender identity and freedom from humiliation.

Many transgender people report experiences of social stigma, exclusion and hostility in public spaces. Policies that require alternative arrangements may therefore create risks of embarrassment, isolation or involuntary disclosure of transgender status. Ethical organisations must actively seek to minimise these harms.

This obligation may include:

• Maintaining privacy and confidentiality.
• Avoiding unnecessary questioning about a person's sex or transgender status.
• Training staff to interact respectfully and professionally.
• Ensuring complaints procedures protect all parties from harassment.
• Avoiding language that is derogatory, dismissive or dehumanising.

Even where organisations implement restrictions permitted by law, they remain ethically responsible for the manner in which those restrictions are communicated and applied.

An ethically responsible organisation recognises that a person's dignity can be harmed not only by exclusion itself but also by the way exclusion is enacted.

The Principle of Non-Maleficence

A second ethical principle derives from the concept of non-maleficence: the obligation to avoid causing harm.

Research consistently demonstrates that transgender people experience elevated rates of social exclusion, discrimination, mental distress and victimisation compared with the general population. Ethical decision-makers must therefore consider foreseeable harms arising from policies and procedures.

The draft Code acknowledges that organisations may need to consider alternative facilities, including gender-neutral provision, where this is practical and proportionate. (The Guardian)

From an ethical perspective, provision of safe and accessible alternatives should not be regarded merely as a legal safeguard. It represents an effort to reduce foreseeable harm. Where organisations possess the resources to create private, individual or gender-neutral facilities, there is a strong ethical argument for doing so.

Failure to provide reasonable alternatives may leave transgender people facing difficult choices between exclusion, discomfort and potential confrontation. Such outcomes may technically satisfy legal requirements while falling short of ethical obligations. From my own practical experience, this matter is a serious concern for my wellbeing when working within organisational systems.

Fairness and Procedural Justice

Fairness requires that policies are applied consistently, transparently and proportionately.

One concern raised by commentators is that attempts to enforce sex-based access rules may lead to arbitrary scrutiny of individuals whose appearance does not conform to conventional expectations of masculinity or femininity. Critics have argued that this could affect both transgender and cisgender individuals. (The Times)

Consider, for example, a cisgender woman who does not (through choice or biology) appear as popular stereotypes would demand. In using 'women-only' facilities, she may be challenged, leading to destructive embarrassment or even legal action. Such issues are not beyond possibility but have become actual because of the lack of ethical thinking within the Guidance.

Ethically, organisations should avoid systems that encourage subjective judgements based on appearance, stereotypes or assumptions. Procedures should be clearly defined, evidence-based and respectful of privacy.

Procedural justice also requires opportunities for dialogue and review. Individuals affected by decisions should have access to explanations, appeals and complaints mechanisms. Fair treatment is not merely about outcomes but also about whether people feel they have been heard and treated respectfully throughout a process.

Inclusion and Social Belonging

A further ethical responsibility concerns social inclusion.

Modern democratic societies generally aspire not merely to tolerate minorities but to facilitate their full participation in social life. Inclusion in this manner includes volunteering, activism, political action, and social enjoyment. Exclusion from public facilities may have broader symbolic effects beyond the practical inconvenience involved.

Transgender people often describe exclusionary experiences as conveying a message that they are unwelcome or viewed as inherently problematic. Ethical organisations should therefore consider the communicative impact of their policies.

This does not necessarily require ignoring legal constraints. Rather, it requires organisations to communicate clearly that transgender people remain valued members of the community.

Practical measures might include:

• Inclusive public messaging.
• Anti-harassment policies.
• Staff training on transgender inclusion.
• Consultation with affected communities.
• Visible commitment to equality and respect.

The ethical objective is to prevent legal compliance from becoming social exclusion.

Public Sector Responsibilities

Public bodies have particularly significant ethical obligations because they exercise power on behalf of society as a whole.

The Equality Act Code applies to public authorities performing public functions, including local authorities, healthcare organisations, educational institutions and police services. (GOV.UK)

Public institutions are expected to embody principles of fairness, impartiality and equal citizenship. Their decisions therefore carry symbolic as well as practical importance.

Where public bodies adopt policies affecting transgender people, ethical governance requires:

• Transparency.
• Evidence-based decision-making.
• Human rights impact assessment.
• Meaningful consultation.
• Monitoring of unintended consequences.

Public authorities should be especially attentive to the experiences of vulnerable minorities because those minorities often possess less social and political power than majority groups.

Corporate and Voluntary Sector Responsibilities

Private companies and voluntary organisations are also moral actors whose responsibilities extend beyond legal compliance.

Corporate social responsibility frameworks increasingly recognise duties towards stakeholders rather than shareholders alone. This includes employees, customers, service users and local communities.

Businesses that serve the public have ethical incentives to create environments where all individuals feel safe and respected. Such commitments often align with broader organisational values concerning diversity, inclusion and social responsibility.

Voluntary organisations may bear additional ethical responsibilities where they serve vulnerable populations. Charities and community organisations often define their missions in terms of social justice, support and empowerment. Consequently, policies affecting transgender service users should be assessed not only for legality but also for consistency with organisational values.

Towards an Ethic of Accommodation

The most constructive ethical approach may be one of accommodation rather than exclusion.

Accommodation seeks practical solutions that respect the interests of all affected groups wherever possible. It recognises that conflicts of rights may occur while rejecting the assumption that one group's dignity must be sacrificed for another's.

Examples include:

• Individual self-contained facilities.
• Gender-neutral provision.
• Flexible service design.
• Sensitive case-by-case decision-making.
• Consultation and mediation.

Accommodation reflects a broader ethical commitment to coexistence within a pluralistic society.

Rather than asking who must lose, accommodation asks how institutions can minimise harm while maximising inclusion.

Conclusion

The Equality Act Draft Code of Practice 2026 introduces important changes to the interpretation and operation of single-sex services following developments in UK law. Nevertheless, the ethical obligations owed to transgender people remain substantial.

Public authorities, private organisations and voluntary bodies continue to have responsibilities grounded in principles of dignity, fairness, inclusion, non-maleficence and respect for persons. Legal compliance alone is insufficient. Organisations must also consider the human consequences of their policies and strive to minimise harm, preserve dignity and promote belonging.

An ethical organisation does not view transgender people as a problem to be managed. Rather, it recognises them as citizens, service users, employees and community members whose equal moral worth remains unchanged. The intersectional nature of such lives should be obvious.

The challenge posed by the new guidance is therefore not simply one of legal interpretation but of moral imagination: how to uphold competing rights while ensuring that every person continues to be treated with humanity, respect and fairness.

References

Equality and Human Rights Commission (2026) Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations. London: EHRC.

Kant, I. (1993) Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. 3rd edn. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1785).

Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York: United Nations.

Bibliography

Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (2019) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Equality and Human Rights Commission (2026) Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations. London: EHRC.

Kant, I. (1993) Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. 3rd edn. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

Mill, J.S. (2001) On Liberty. Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books. (Original work published 1859).

Nussbaum, M.C. (2011) Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York: United Nations.

Young, I.M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The legal situation surrounding the draft Code is still evolving as of time of writing (2/6/2026). The strongest version of my essay would distinguish carefully between what the law may require and what ethics may require, since the latter can place more demanding obligations upon organisations than the former.

That distinction is, I think, the central philosophical issue raised by the new guidance. The draft Code itself confirms that protection against discrimination, harassment and victimisation on grounds of gender reassignment remains part of the Equality Act framework. (GOV.UK)