Summary
TransLucent Letter to the EHRC June 14th 2026
TransLucent Letter to the EHRC June 14th 2026
Correspondence Unit
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Arndale House
The Arndale Centre
Manchester
M4 3AQ
June 14, 2026
Dear REDACTED
At our meeting with you on Friday in relation to the Commission’s Code of Practice, now laid before Parliament, we raised with you a number of matters which are presently of great concern to trans people in the UK.
It was agreed that we should write to you formally to seek an answer on these matters that can be shared publicly. As also agreed, we will write to you separately to provide evidence and examples of the practical unworkability of the Code as it now stands.
Our concerns: the ‘intermediate’ position of trans people, and
The unworkability of s7,
Both under the FWS Supreme Court ruling and the recent EHRC Code on the provision of services.
We were particularly concerned to note the position advanced by your Chair, Dr Mary-Anne
Stephenson and Chief Executive John Fitzpatrick at the House of Commons joint Women and
Equalities Sub-Committee (WESC) and Human Rights Sub-Committee (HRSC) session on Tuesday last, at which they put forward the position which can be summarised as:
Trans people should be accommodated in ‘third spaces’ away from cis men and women, and
Ms Stephenson and Mr Fitzpatrick saw the state of the law as satisfactory and certainly not a state which would cause them to advise government that a change in the law was required.
We were, frankly, shocked at the complacency, lack of engagement with practical consequences for trans people (illustrated so clearly in the OEO Equality Impact Assessment) and the fall back on ‘common sense’ as an answer to questions from the MPs.
Coming shortly to the particular matters on which we seek an answer to understand the EHRC’s
position, we also noted Ms Stephenson’s comment that the Supreme Court had had Goodwin and Article 8 in mind because they are mentioned in the judgment.
We find that a shockingly complacent position given that Ms Stephenson failed to mention that, after demonstrating that they were aware of the two important sources of law, Ms Stephenson omitted to mention that the Supreme Court failed entirely to perform any analysis (as is to be expected under the UK Human Rights Act) of whether its ‘sex is biological sex and does not include certified sex’ determination was consistent with the
European Convention, particularly Article 8 and relevant case law such as Goodwin.
Goodwin Compliance.
Goodwin was very clear that :
‘In short, the unsatisfactory situation in which post-operative transsexuals live in an
intermediate zone as not quite one gender or the other is no longer sustainable. (para 90)
And that:
‘…the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.’ (para 91)
Does the EHRC accept that banishing trans people to ‘third spaces’ is precisely placing them in the inappropriate ‘intermediate zone’ identified by the ECtHR in Goodwin whereas allowing them to be recognised in the identity they have transitioned to would alleviate this breach of Article 8?
Does the Commission accept that evidence available, including the FOI – based studies carried out by TransLucent shows that trans people’s use of services aligned with their gender has caused minimal or no difficulties?
Does the Commission accept that the negative impact on trans people and others of attempting to force trans people into third spaces, is disproportionate to any gain?
Does the Commission accept that the present position is likely to have put the UK in breach of Article 8 and if not, why not?
Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010.
This section defines the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment.
Section 7(1) provides:
‘A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to
undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose
of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.’
It has generally been accepted that physiological attributes have included such matters as the changes brought about by hormone therapy or surgery, and ‘other’ attributes include adopting a different honorific, name, and matters such as hairstyle or style of dress.
The difficulty with the Supreme Court ruling is that if ‘sex’ is ‘biological sex as recorded at birth’, it can never be altered, and section 7 now appears otiose under the Supreme Court ruling.
Does the EHRC accept that the Supreme Court ruling appears to render Section 7 otiose?
Does the EHRC accept that this is an absurd position?
Does the EHRC accept that the absurd position is contrary to and incomprehensible when read with BOTH the will of parliament in enacting the GRA 2004 and the relevant parts of the Equality Act, AND those parts of the Supreme Court judgment which suggest that trans people are still protected?
How are courts and tribunals to assess whether individuals have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in future?
Whilst appreciating that the Commission will have many calls on its time, we are sure that these are questions the Commission has asked itself and its advisers since the FWS judgment appeared and before proffering its draft code.
We would appreciate answers within a timescale which will allow the answers to be shown to MPs considering the draft Code.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this letter. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely yours,
Robin Moira White
Dr Debora Diamond
