Summary
Claims that trans women have lost the right to use single sex spaces misstate the law. A rebuttal to gender-critical organisations and the right-wing media.
Claims that trans women have lost the right to use single sex spaces misstate the law.
Contrary to claims by the right-wing media and gender-critical organisations, the Supreme Court has NOT removed trans women’s ability to access single‑sex services, nor has it created any new duty on providers to exclude them.
The Equality Act 2010 continues to protect trans people through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That protection applies across services and public functions, education, employment, clubs, associations, and similar settings. There is no requirement for medical treatment or a Gender Recognition Certificate to be covered.
If a service provider treats a trans person less favourably because they are trans – for example, by refusing access, subjecting them to degrading treatment, or forcing them into an unsafe, degrading alternative- that may amount to unlawful discrimination unless a statutory exception applies.
Single sex service exceptions still exist, but they are not blanket permissions for anyone.
A provider may rely on them only where:
1: They are pursuing a legitimate aim, and
2: Their approach is a proportionate means of achieving that aim. A policy that excludes all trans women from women’s toilets, changing rooms, refuges or other services “because of biological sex” is not automatically lawful.
If a policy is rigid, punitive, or goes further than necessary – or if it leaves a trans person without any safe or usable service – it can be challenged as disproportionate and discriminatory Specialists in discrimination law are already emphasising that trans people retain the ability to bring claims where single‑sex policies are applied in an unfair or unjustified way, and that tribunals are scrutinising whether both exclusionary and inclusive policies are genuinely proportionate.
The proportionality test remains central to equality law.
The Supreme Court case concerned whether Scottish Government guidance could treat trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate as “women” for the purpose of a statutory representation target on public boards. It did not concern access to toilets, changing rooms, refuges, prisons, or any other single‑sex service.
While the Court confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, it did not instruct service providers to exclude trans women, nor did it dilute the protection for gender reassignment.
Clarification on “Biological Sex”
While the Court clarified the definition of ‘sex’ in a specific context, it did not erase the ‘gender reassignment’ protection. These two characteristics exist side-by-side. One does not trump the other; rather, providers must balance both. In the vast majority of cases, the protection against discrimination based on gender reassignment ensures that trans women should be treated as the women they are.
For Service Providers: A Cautionary Note:
The ruling does not grant a ‘license to exclude.’ Any provider moving toward a blanket exclusionary policy is likely increasing their legal risk. To be lawful, a policy must be evidence-based and considered on a case-by-case basis. If you cannot prove that excluding a trans person is the only way to achieve a legitimate aim, you may be vulnerable to a discrimination claim. Dignity and privacy apply to everyone—including transgender service users.
Claims that trans women have lost the right to use single sex spaces misstate the law.
Recent tribunal decisions, including Peggie, and cases such as Kelly demonstrate both that trans people can succeed where policies are applied in a discriminatory or disproportionate manner, and that trans‑inclusive policies can themselves be upheld as lawful and proportionate.
Authored by Steph Richards (TransLucent CEO) 31/12/25
