A Catastrophe in Slow Motion: Why the EHRC’s Guidance Must Be Stopped Now

A Catastrophe in Slow Motion: Why the EHRC Guidance Must Be Stopped Now

In my opinion, the UK Supreme Court’s recent ruling in For Women Scotland (No. 2) was a gross miscarriage of justice. It demonstrated fundamental procedural flaws, clear bias against trans people, and no regard for the medical or social realities of our lives. However, it explicitly stated that existing rights under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment would remain unaffected.

The EHRC’s interim guidance and proposed amendments ignore that completely.

They appear designed to cause the maximum possible harm to trans people, regardless of how many legal frameworks are violated in the process. In short, the EHRC is using the Supreme Court’s ruling not as a constraint, but as an excuse to dismantle trans rights. There is no legal obligation to do this. There is no medical, ethical, or scientific justification for doing this.

The EHRC is also misrepresenting the ruling itself.

The Court referred to “biological sex” – a term which is neither fixed nor binary – yet the EHRC is attempting to redefine it into a fictional, legally binding category of “sex assigned at birth.”

This is scientifically incoherent and morally indefensible. It completely dismisses the significance and validity of transitioning.

Crucially, the EHRC does not have the authority to create new legal definitions. It cannot rewrite statute law, yet it is attempting to do exactly that. What the EHRC is proposing amounts to an unlawful expansion of its remit, aimed at systematically excluding trans people from public life.

You may have heard that a public consultation on the proposed changes is underway. But it is not a genuine consultation. It does not ask whether the guidance is justified, legal, or proportionate. It merely asks whether the language clearly explains how trans people will be excluded. This is not accountability. It is a box-ticking exercise designed to create the appearance of legitimacy while sidestepping actual scrutiny.

Some media voices have said the guidance might make things “more difficult” for trans people. That is a colossal understatement. If enacted, it would destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of us. We would be forced to risk humiliation, outing, and harassment every time we tried to access a public facility. That includes restaurants, gyms, theatres, shopping centres, pubs, toilets at motorway services. Everyday spaces that most people take for granted become a source of profound and lasting trauma for us.

Gender neutral spaces have been suggested as a compromise. But this is not inclusion. It is segregation, and it strips away our legal rights to privacy, dignity, and equal treatment.

The effects will not stop at trans people.

This guidance would harm everyone in the UK. Anyone who doesn’t conform to narrow expectations of how a man or woman should look could be challenged in public, forced to show ID, or humiliated. Private medical information would become a basis for access to services. The door would open to arbitrary harassment, and once open, it would not be easily closed.

The danger is not just that the EHRC Code of Practice will be widely adopted. It comes from a body that no longer commands public trust. The EHRC has lost its credibility as a neutral rights organisation. It is now acting as a political weapon, not a legal safeguard – which makes its influence dangerous and actively corrosive.

Beyond that lies the broader catastrophe. The likely chain reaction is easy to sketch, and terrifying to imagine:

• The guidance goes live, prompting immediate legal challenges from individuals, unions, and advocacy groups.
• Widespread confusion follows over how it can be enforced in practice.
• Cis people are harassed in public spaces after being mistaken for trans.
• International condemnation begins. NGOs speak out. The EHRC is downgraded by GANHRIGANHRI The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions brings together and supports national human rights institutions to promote and protect human rights Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions https://ganhri.org    .
• The UK loses its seat on international human rights panels.
• Organisations that adopt the guidance are sued for human rights violations.
• Trade treaties and diplomatic agreements begin to unravel, as the UK no longer has a recognised rights regulator.
• Economic consequences spread. International confidence in the UK collapses.
• National press backlash begins, fuelled by stories of harm to ordinary citizens.
• The Labour Party is held responsible for overseeing the collapse of the UK’s human rights framework.
• Politicians who failed to act are named and shamed in public investigations.
• The UK is taken to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
• And all the while, the real-world harm to thousands of trans people is documented in brutal detail.

This is not alarmism. It is a conservative estimate. Things could get worse.

As trans people increasingly avoid hospitals and public institutions for fear of harassment or misgendering, it becomes entirely possible that this policy leads to serious injury or even death. And if it does, there is a world in which the consequences are not confined to Strasbourg, but are eventually heard in The Hague.

I believe the Supreme Court’s ruling has created a legal contradiction between the Gender Recognition Act, the Human Rights Act, and the Equality Act 2010. Acting upon the Court’s ruling without breaking another part of UK law is now legally impossible. Politicians may hesitate to say this openly because it would require admitting that the Court made serious errors. However, failing to address the contradiction does not resolve it. It simply allows the damage to spread.

However, there has been a significant development since the Supreme Court delivered its judgment.

On 12 June 2025, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a ruling in T.H. v. Czech Republic. That ruling reaffirmed that Article 8 of the Convention – the right to respect for private life – applies in full to trans people, including those who have not undergone surgery. It also reaffirmed Article 14 protections against discrimination, including for gender identity and medical status.

This now places the UK government, the EHRC, and every public body in a serious legal bind.

• The EHRC’s draft Code of Practice promotes policies that force the outing or exclusion of trans people, including those with Gender Recognition Certificates.
• The Supreme Court ruling enables a redefinition of sex that undermines the legal recognition trans people were promised under the GRA.
• Both developments now contradict binding international human rights law, as confirmed by the European Court.

If the government proceeds with this guidance, it will breach the European Convention, the Human Rights Act 1998, and its obligations under Article 46 to comply with the Court’s judgments. It will expose public bodies and service providers to years of litigation and likely destroy the last remnants of the UK’s international human rights credibility.

There is, however, still time to act.

The government can pause the EHRC guidance and review its implications in light of the ECHR judgment. It does not have to take sides politically to do this. It only has to uphold the rule of law.

This is not about ideological disagreement. It is about legal coherence, public safety, and the international standing of the United Kingdom. The costs of silence will be immense. The opportunity to act is narrow, but it is still open.

As Robin Moira White recently pointed out, this entire disaster could be stopped with a simple legislative amendment confirming that “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act include trans people with a GRC.

No radical restructuring required. Just a reaffirmation of rights already in law.

What we need now is for one politician to speak the obvious truth.

The emperor has no clothes.