The debate over access to single-sex spaces in Scotland has reached a fever pitch, with recent legal rulings and political decisions sparking fierce arguments across the country. At the heart of the controversy are the rights of transgender, non-binary, and intersex individuals to use facilities that align with their gender identity, pitted against recent legal interpretations that define such spaces by biological sex. In the past week, these tensions have come to a head, with the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the courts finding themselves at odds, while organizations and activists on both sides closely watch for the next move from lawmakers and regulators.
On December 13, 2025, the SNP’s National Council—the party’s highest policy-making body—voted to reject attempts to ban biological men from using female toilets and changing rooms. According to the Scottish Daily Express, this vote was driven by a motion from Out for Indy, the SNP’s internal LGBTQ group, which has long championed the rights of trans, non-binary, and intersex people. The motion, passed by acclaim, signals a likely shift in party policy and sets the SNP at odds with the current stance of the Scottish Government, which has updated its own guidelines to restrict single-sex facilities to those born that sex following an April 2025 Supreme Court ruling.
The motion specifically raised concerns about the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)’s updated draft code of practice for single-sex facilities, which, as of December 2025, remains under consideration by the UK Government. The EHRC’s draft guidance proposes restricting single-sex spaces—such as bathrooms and changing rooms—to individuals born that sex, while also suggesting the provision of individual lockable rooms usable by both sexes. Out for Indy’s motion argued that these proposals would “severely impact people’s right to privacy” and disproportionately discriminate against trans, non-binary, and intersex people, as highlighted by the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The group’s statement, shared on X, read: “Out for Independence is happy to report that our motion regarding the threat posed by the EHRC Code of Practice was passed by acclaim at the SNP’s National Council on 13th December. The SNP will remain committed to the rights of trans, non-binary and intersex Scots.”
The motion further called on the UK Government to open the updated code of practice to debate in the House of Commons, giving elected representatives the opportunity to voice concerns, and to reject any guidance or laws that would disproportionately impact the rights and liberties of trans, non-binary, and intersex citizens. This stance stands in sharp contrast to the Scottish Government’s position, which, according to official statements, has “made clear it accepts the Supreme Court ruling [in For Women Scotland] and is taking forward the detailed work necessary.”
Critics of the SNP’s move were quick to voice their concerns. Scottish Conservative deputy chairwoman Pam Gosal, speaking to the Scottish Daily Express on December 14, 2025, condemned the decision as “utterly shameful,” arguing, “The Supreme Court’s ruling was crystal clear, the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, but the nationalists refuse to follow the law. They’re still kowtowing to their extremist Green pals. This isn’t just insulting, it’s putting women and girls at risk. John Swinney must call out this nonsense and finally issue a clear instruction for all public bodies in Scotland to follow the law.”
Meanwhile, the legal landscape remains deeply unsettled following a landmark tribunal ruling just days earlier. On December 8, 2025, the employment tribunal in the case of Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife concluded that the health board had harassed nurse Sandie Peggie on four counts related to the handling of her complaint but dismissed 43 other allegations, including all against trans doctor Beth Upton. According to The Sunday National, the tribunal found that NHS Fife’s decision to allow the trans doctor to use female changing spaces was not unlawful—a decision that many trans rights campaigners have hailed as a victory against blanket exclusions from single-sex facilities.
Scottish Greens MSP Patrick Harvie, for instance, pointed to the ruling as evidence that “blanket exclusion of trans people” from single-sex facilities is generally unlawful. However, gender-critical groups, including For Women Scotland, have expressed outrage, arguing that the tribunal’s decision contradicts the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment, which defined “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 as referring to biological sex, not self-identified gender.
Legal scholars have weighed in to clarify the implications of these rulings. Alexander Maine, a senior lecturer at The City Law School, told The Sunday National that the tribunal is a court of first instance and does not set binding precedent. “It might offer a bit of hope to trans people, in terms of recognising that there isn’t a blanket ban on trans people existing in society,” Maine said. He emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling was narrowly focused on interpreting the Equality Act and did not dictate policy. “The Supreme Court was very clear in the For Women Scotland judgment that they’re only adjudicating on how the terms men and women were to be interpreted in the context of the Equality Act… So, I don’t think they necessarily contradict each other.”
Maine also noted that the responsibility for determining how trans people access spaces now falls to the EHRC and the Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson. However, with the EHRC’s interim guidance—issued just nine days after the Peggie ruling, stating that trans people could not use toilets matching their acquired gender—having faced legal challenges and subsequently withdrawn, many organizations are left in limbo. “We don’t necessarily know what businesses should be doing,” Maine admitted.
Damian Gonzalez-Salzberg, a professor at the University of Birmingham Law School, echoed the uncertainty, telling The Sunday National, “I don’t know what the appeal tribunal is going to say because, if I’m completely honest, from April to this point I don’t know anymore what the judiciary in this country is going to decide about these cases.” He pointed out that the EHRC’s code of practice, when eventually published, will be crucial in providing clarity, but that Parliament also has the power to amend the Equality Act itself to clarify protections.
There is also an ongoing challenge to the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland decision at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which could have significant implications for UK policy. If the ECHR finds a violation, the UK may be forced to reconsider its legal approach or face international consequences.
As appeals proceed and policymakers debate the next steps, the question of how to balance the rights and safety of all groups remains unresolved. For now, Scotland finds itself at a crossroads, with the law, politics, and public opinion all pulling in different directions—leaving individuals and institutions alike searching for clarity in a landscape marked by rapid change and deep divisions.
