NUNTIATORIA

EHRC takes action: 19 public bodies told to withdraw unlawful policies. Supreme Court confirms single-sex spaces must be based on biological sex, not self-ID.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has entered the first stage of enforcement proceedings against 19 public bodies whose policies on single-sex spaces misrepresent the law. This follows years of confusion in the public sector, where guidance and training documents have promoted “self-identification” as a legal basis for access, despite no such right existing in statute.

The Scale of the Problem
In 2023, the EHRC warned ministers that many public bodies—including NHS trusts, police forces, and local authorities—were publishing guidance that suggested individuals had an automatic legal right to access single-sex services based on self-identification. A subsequent call for evidence drew 404 submissions, around 10% of which were judged to misstate or omit the lawful exceptions contained in the Equality Act 2010.¹

The Legal Framework
The Equality Act 2010 preserves the right of service providers to operate single-sex services. Under Schedule 3, providers may lawfully exclude or restrict individuals of the opposite sex—even those with the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”—where such measures are proportionate and serve a legitimate aim.² These provisions are crucial for safeguarding dignity and privacy in contexts such as women’s refuges, hospital wards, and changing facilities.

The Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers (FWS) confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, not gender identity or possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate.³ This ruling directly invalidated guidance that treated self-identification as a sufficient basis for entry into single-sex spaces.

Examples of Misapplied Policy
The EHRC’s current enforcement sits against the backdrop of several high-profile examples of unlawful or misleading guidance:

• Scottish Government Guidance: Prior to the FWS judgment, the Scottish Government claimed that a man with a Gender Recognition Certificate was “legally a woman.” The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, affirming that the law recognises sex in biological terms.⁴
• NHS England Training Materials: In 2024, NHS England circulated mandatory training stating it could be harassment to ask a male colleague identifying as female to use separate facilities. This guidance effectively nullified the single-sex exceptions in law and was later withdrawn as “out of date.”⁵
• Government Admission: In May 2024, Minister Kemi Badenoch formally requested evidence of such misguidance, acknowledging that many public-sector organisations were operating under flawed policies that treated self-identification as legally binding.⁶
• EHRC Review: The regulator’s review of the 404 submissions found that numerous organisations were not only misrepresenting the law but persisting in doing so even after the FWS ruling. The 19 organisations now under scrutiny represent the most serious and persistent offenders.⁷

Enforcement Action
The EHRC has written to these organisations, instructing them to amend or withdraw policies that “wrongly suggest there is an automatic legal right to access single-sex spaces based on self-identification.” Although presented as a request, this is in fact the opening step of formal enforcement powers under the Equality Act 2006. Those who fail to comply face compliance notices, investigations, and potentially unlimited fines.⁸

The regulator has emphasised that its criteria for action included organisational size, persistence, and the likely impact on vulnerable groups. Importantly, only those institutions that maintained unlawful policies after the FWS judgment were targeted in this round.

Wider Implications
The EHRC’s action has three major implications. First, it signals that activist reinterpretations of the Equality Act will no longer be tolerated in public institutions. Second, it dispels the narrative that the FWS ruling was of marginal effect or could be ignored until the EHRC publishes a new Code of Practice. Third, it reinforces that the law’s balance between rights depends upon recognition of biological reality; to erase sex from the legal framework is to strip women of privacy and safeguarding protections guaranteed by Parliament.

Private sector organisations are now on notice. The EHRC has confirmed that enforcement will not stop with public authorities. Businesses that misstate the law in workplace policies or training risk regulatory investigation and legal challenge.

Conclusion
The action against 19 organisations marks a decisive turning point in the debate over single-sex spaces. Misrepresentation of the law—whether through carelessness or ideology—has created confusion, undermined safeguarding, and eroded confidence in public institutions. By taking enforcement seriously, the EHRC has begun the process of restoring clarity.

For public and private organisations alike, the message is clear: compliance with the Equality Act 2010 is not optional. Policies must reflect the law as written and upheld by the Supreme Court. Failure to do so will bring both regulatory and judicial consequences.

---

Footnotes

1. Equality and Human Rights Commission, “EHRC completes review of evidence on government single-sex space policies,” August 2025.
2. Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3, Part 7 (Exceptions: single-sex services).
3. For Women Scotland Ltd v The Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers [2024] UKSC 33.
4. Ibid.
5. “LGBTQ rights in the United Kingdom,” Wikipedia (accessed Sept. 2025); reporting on withdrawn NHS diversity training.
6. UK Government, “Kemi Badenoch asks for examples of bad guidance on single-sex spaces,” May 2024.
7. EHRC statement, August 2025, referenced in Personnel Today, “EHRC acts on policies flouting law on single-sex spaces,” September 2025.
8. Equality Act 2006, Part 1, ss. 20–32 (EHRC enforcement powers).