The Law

A quote from the UK Supreme Court Ruling UKSC/2024/0042, April 2025:

“2. It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).”

Please note that the SC judges made it EXPLICIT that their interpretations concerned the EA 2010 only. Any attempt to extend their comments outside of this context is pure misinformation. Consequently, any guidance, code or advice based upon the Ruling again solely concerns the EA 2010.

It might be also wise to note that it has ALWAYS been possible to exclude trans' people from single-sex places, and I quote:

Equality Act 2010 — Schedule 3, Part 7, Paragraph 28

28(1) A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

28(2) The matters are:
(a) the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;
(b) the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;
(c) the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.

For any service provider to lawfully exclude a trans person under this exemption, they must satisfy two elements:

1. Legitimate aim — Courts have found this can include:

• Privacy and dignity rights (particularly in intimate care settings)
• Trauma-informed services (e.g., rape crisis centres, domestic abuse refuges)
• Single-sex spaces where people may be in a state of undress or vulnerable

1. Proportionality — The exclusion must be proportionate, meaning:

• It must be no more than necessary to achieve the aim
• It cannot be a blanket policy — it must be assessed case by case
• The provider must consider less restrictive alternatives first.

Yet, I ask you, if this is the case (and has been for the past 16 years), why is it that there's been a need to cause harm to the trans' community via pointlessly incoherent 'advice' from the EHRC?