The United Kingdom is facing a fierce debate over the future of single-sex spaces, as new legal interpretations and draft guidance threaten to reshape the landscape for trans, non-binary, and intersex individuals—and spark economic and operational headaches for businesses across the country.
At the heart of the controversy is the UK Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling in FWS v Scottish Ministers (also referred to as For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers), which held that the definition of “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act refers explicitly to “biological sex,” with “woman” meaning a “biological woman.” According to BBC and The Independent, this judgment was quickly hailed by gender-critical campaigners as a victory for biological women, but it has left many others reeling, raising questions about the practical and ethical implications for society at large.
Oscar Davies, the UK’s first out non-binary barrister, has emerged as one of the most prominent voices challenging the prevailing interpretation of the ruling. Speaking to PinkNews on September 17, 2025, Davies argued that the Supreme Court’s decision is being “widely misinterpreted to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces,” and that the real intent of the Equality Act is being lost in translation. “A general rule [of equality law] is that you must not discriminate against someone,” Davies explained. “Say if we’re talking about service provision in gyms, under Section 29 of the Equality Act, you must not discriminate—full stop.”
Davies emphasized that while Schedule 3 of the Act allows for exceptions—such as single-sex spaces—these are permissive, not exclusionary. “The Supreme Court has said, ‘OK, well, a single-sex space means a space for biological sex,’ but the point here is that these provisions are permissive rather than exclusionary. This is where everyone keeps getting it wrong.” In their view, the law was designed to protect, not penalize: “The Equality Act is meant to be a shield rather than a sword. It’s not meant to attack people and get rid of their rights.”
Despite these reassurances, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has moved swiftly to recommend changes to the UK government’s code of practice on single-sex services. The proposed updates, currently awaiting sign-off from Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, could allow service providers to exclude trans individuals from facilities aligned with their gender identity. The code is expected to become legally binding—potentially without any parliamentary debate—prompting fears of a dramatic shift in the legal landscape.
The process has been met with sharp criticism from LGBTQ+ and human rights organizations, who decry the six-week consultation period as rushed and lacking in transparency. Davies is particularly concerned about the lack of democratic debate and public accountability. “EHRC codes usually go through without debate because they haven’t been contentious. But this is highly political and will affect the rights of so many people. There should always be a democratic debate and public accountability,” Davies told PinkNews.
Business leaders are also sounding the alarm. In a remarkable show of unity, more than 650 organisations—including Ben & Jerry’s, Lush Cosmetics, and hundreds of independent pubs and cafés—have written to the UK government warning that the EHRC’s draft guidance is “unworkable” and would “cause significant economic harm,” as reported by The Independent and IBTimes. The letter, sent to ministers Bridget Phillipson and Peter Kyle, argues that the guidance would force organizations to adopt practices incompatible with modern business values, create operational chaos, and risk reputational damage.
“Many of us have spent years building inclusive environments where all customers and staff feel safe and welcome. These proposals would tell us to act in ways that directly contradict those commitments; undermining trust, damaging reputations, and risking the loss of valued staff and customers,” the letter states. For small and medium-sized businesses, the financial burden could be especially severe, with concerns about the cost of converting gendered spaces into gender-neutral ones and the threat of constant legal risk.
Alex Whitcroft, director of housing developer KIN, expressed frustration to The Independent: “It’s incredibly frustrating for a small construction sector business like us which uses shared office space and has staff visiting sites with gendered facilities. We don’t want to enforce trans exclusion on staff or clients and communities we work with. The proposals are completely unworkable, especially for [small businesses] like us and leave us carrying significant admin cost and risk.”
Andrew Butler, campaigns manager at Lush, echoed this sentiment, saying the company would do “everything in our power to resist” trans-exclusionary policies. “We have seen time and again that scapegoating marginalised groups creates nothing but division and stokes fear and violence. We stand with the trans community and all who want to live in a society that values diversity, equity and inclusion.”
Trans advocates warn that the ruling and guidance risk excluding trans women from public spaces such as lavatories, changing rooms, hospital wards, and more. Groups like TransActual have condemned the guidance as “bigoted” and potentially unlawful, warning that it goes beyond what the Supreme Court decision required and threatens inclusion, dignity, and safety.
Conversely, gender-critical advocates and organizations sympathetic to single-sex spaces argue that the Supreme Court ruling restores clarity to the legal definition of sex under the Equality Act. They believe the revised guidance is necessary to protect services meant exclusively for biological women, especially in sensitive contexts like healthcare, shelters, and sports.
Yet, the ruling and the draft guidance have left non-binary and intersex people in legal limbo. Davies lamented to PinkNews that the law’s silence on these identities is both harmful and confusing: “It’s demeaning as a lawyer to not be recognised by the law that I use in my everyday life. It says biological sex means this or that, then says sex and gender are generally interchanged—but with no further explanation.” This ambiguity raises troubling questions about whether non-binary or intersex people would be able to seek legal redress if discriminated against.
The stakes are high, and the human cost is mounting. Hate crimes against transgender people in the UK have soared, rising from 2,630 recorded offences in 2020-21 to 4,889 in 2022-23, with only a slight decline to 4,780 in 2023-24, according to IBTimes. Dr. Victoria McCloud, the UK’s first transgender judge, told The Independent that “Britain felt like a safer place to be trans in the Nineties than it does now,” and criticized the Supreme Court’s April ruling for lacking trans representation: “Decisions about us that fundamentally change our rights shouldn’t be made without us...The case relates fundamentally to fairness.”
As the EHRC code moves closer to becoming law, Davies encourages public and ally engagement: “If everyone spoke up more, then the people who put their heads above the parapet wouldn’t have so much responsibility. It’d be much easier if more people were willing to raise their voices—and I’m not just talking about trans people; I’m talking about allies.”
With the future of single-sex spaces, business operations, and the rights of trans, non-binary, and intersex individuals hanging in the balance, the coming weeks may well define the UK’s legacy on LGBT+ rights for years to come.
