The debate over transgender rights in public spaces and the workplace has reached a fever pitch in the UK and the US, with recent court rulings, organizational policies, and government actions sparking fierce discussion and legal challenges. From the Women’s Institute’s controversial membership ban to President Donald Trump’s executive orders on bathroom access, the battle lines are being drawn in courtrooms, boardrooms, and even hospital changing rooms.
In the UK, the Women’s Institute (WI) – a storied organization with deep roots in British civic life – announced it will no longer allow trans women to join or renew their memberships starting in April 2026. According to the WI’s chief executive Melissa Green, this was not a decision made lightly. "This is not something we would do unless we felt that we had no other choice," Green explained, as reported in the Socialist Worker. The move follows a Supreme Court ruling that redefined the legal meaning of a woman in a manner described by critics as transphobic. The decision has already sent ripples through other organizations; Girlguiding UK similarly decided in December 2025 to exclude trans girls from its ranks.
These rulings and policy changes have immediate and profound consequences for trans women, who already face disproportionate rates of unemployment, poverty, and workplace discrimination. Legally mandating their exclusion from women’s spaces, critics argue, further strips them of privacy, security, and the basic rights enjoyed by other women. As one Edinburgh activist, Sally, put it in the Socialist Worker, "Cisgender women do not need protection from trans women. This rhetoric only serves to divide us and reverse decades of progress." Others, like Georgia from Sunderland, have called for non-compliance, suggesting that if the ban is not implemented, it will become unworkable.
The tension is not limited to voluntary organizations. In Scotland, nurse Sandie Peggie recently won a harassment claim against NHS Fife after objecting to a transgender doctor, Dr. Beth Upton, using a female changing room at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy. The employment tribunal ruled that NHS Fife had harassed Peggie, though it dismissed her other allegations of discrimination and victimization. Notably, all claims against Dr. Upton were rejected. The tribunal’s lengthy, 312-page judgment considered the Supreme Court’s stance that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law but ultimately found that it is neither inherently lawful nor unlawful for a trans female (biological male) to use a female changing room. Instead, the tribunal recommended that a range of factors should be considered in such cases, according to BBC News.
Reactions to the tribunal’s decision have been mixed and pointed. Baroness Falkner, the former chairwoman of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), called the judgment "unusual and surprising," suggesting it may be appealed. "If you decide that you're providing a single-sex facility, then you cannot allow any biological males into that facility," she told BBC Scotland News. Falkner also noted, "It is a highly unusual and surprising judgement if you base it on what happened in court during those months, and the written submissions." She welcomed the possibility of an appeal for the sake of clarity.
On the other hand, Robin Moira White, a lawyer working with the trans-led advocacy group Translucent, described the tribunal’s decision as a "careful analysis." White, herself a trans woman, said, "It's 312 pages and 1,272 paragraphs of careful analysis by the judge, who has obviously worked very hard to perform the analysis, and a lot of the relevant practitioners...think the judge has done a very good job." White also pointed out that a recent ruling involving aerospace firm Leonardo UK’s toilet policy for transgender staff in Edinburgh had reached a similar conclusion.
The EHRC, which enforces equalities law and advises policymakers, had earlier in 2025 published interim guidance stating that single-sex toilets should only be used by people of the same biological sex. This guidance was met with legal challenges and described by critics as "legally flawed" and "overly simplistic." It has since been withdrawn and replaced with a proposed code of practice, under which trans people could be asked about their access to single-sex spaces based on physical appearance or behavior. The new code must be approved by ministers before taking effect, and UK Women and Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson said her government is "carefully considering" the proposals. A government spokesperson added, "We expect everyone to uphold the law and follow the clarity that the Supreme Court ruling provides."
Across the Atlantic, the issue has become a flashpoint in the United States as well. In one of his first acts upon returning to office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order recognizing only two sexes – male and female – and directed federal agencies to ban transgender and intersex people from single-sex spaces that match their gender identity. This order has had immediate consequences for federal employees like LeAnne Withrow, a transgender civilian working for the Illinois National Guard. Withrow now restricts her food and water intake to minimize restroom use at work, fearing confrontation or disciplinary action. She is the lead plaintiff in a proposed class action lawsuit challenging the bathroom ban as a violation of civil rights, according to reporting by USA Today.
Another lawsuit was filed by Danielle Mittereder, a transgender Transportation Security Administration officer at Dulles International Airport, who accused the Department of Homeland Security of sex discrimination for barring transgender officers from performing security screening pat-downs and using restrooms that correspond with their gender identity. The Office of Personnel Management in January 2025 ordered all federal agencies to designate restrooms and other "intimate spaces" by biological sex, not gender identity.
These cases are the first legal challenges to the Trump administration’s bathroom ban, and legal experts believe they could eventually reach the Supreme Court. The question of whether employees should have access to bathrooms that match their gender identity remains unsettled at the national level. While the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling extended federal workplace protections to LGBTQ+ employees, it did not address the issue of bathrooms or locker rooms. As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, "Whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination are questions for future cases."
Historian Neil J. Young, writing in Politico, observed that bathrooms have long served as a battleground for broader social anxieties, from the 19th-century "separate spheres" ideology to today’s debates over gender identity. Trump’s administration has leveraged these anxieties as a "powerful political lever," making the issue central to his platform and galvanizing supporters who believe in "defending the biological and binary reality of sex," as Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair Andrea Lucas has put it.
Despite the rhetoric, studies like those from UCLA’s Williams Institute have found no evidence that allowing transgender people access to bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity jeopardizes safety or privacy. In fact, forcing trans people to use restrooms according to their sex assigned at birth puts them at greater risk of harm, said Williams Institute scholar Jody Herman.
The patchwork of state laws, local ordinances, and federal policies means that employers and organizations are left to navigate a complex and often contradictory legal landscape. According to the Movement Advancement Project, one in three transgender people in the US now live in states with some form of bathroom restriction, and the number is growing as more states pass restrictive laws.
As the legal battles continue, the rights and dignity of transgender people hang in the balance, caught between shifting political winds and the slow grind of judicial process. For now, the question of who gets to use which bathroom – and who decides – remains as unsettled as ever.
