On October 15, 2025, the United Kingdom found itself at the epicenter of a heated debate over the rights and recognition of transgender people, as both national and international human rights bodies weighed in on the aftermath of a landmark Supreme Court ruling. The April 2025 judgment, which determined that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 refers solely to biological sex, has sent ripples through the legal, business, and advocacy communities, raising urgent questions about inclusion, compliance, and the future of human rights protections in the UK.
Stonewall, the UK’s most prominent LGBTQ+ advocacy group, threw its support behind Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, who issued a stark warning to Parliament. In a letter addressed to the Chairs of the Committees for Women and Equalities and Human Rights, O’Flaherty cautioned that the Supreme Court’s interpretation could leave transgender people in what he called an “intermediate zone”—a legal and social limbo where their rights and identities are neither fully recognized nor protected. According to Attitude, Stonewall responded with appreciation for O’Flaherty’s intervention, stating, “We welcome that the Commissioner for Human Rights has added his voice to concerns about the current climate for trans people in the UK.”
The ruling’s practical consequences are already being felt. Companies such as Barclays have confirmed that, in compliance with the new legal standard, trans women will be barred from using female bathrooms in their buildings. This move, emblematic of a broader shift, has prompted employers across the country to reconsider their policies and facilities. Many are now seeking specialist legal advice to ensure they do not run afoul of the updated interpretation of the law. As Attitude reported, Stonewall has warned that unless the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) draft Code of Practice is “seriously revised,” it risks starting from “a point of exclusion,” potentially creating legal risks for businesses throughout the UK.
The EHRC, Britain’s equalities watchdog, has found itself at the center of the storm. On September 4, 2025, the commission submitted a new, more than 300-page draft code of practice to Women and Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson. The code, updated in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, is intended to clarify how organizations should interpret and implement the revised definition of sex and gender in a variety of settings—from sports clubs to hospitals and public restrooms. The EHRC insists that the draft “accurately reflects the law” and is “as clear as possible,” following extensive public consultations.
However, the government has yet to approve the code, citing the need to carefully review its extensive contents. A government spokesperson told Press Association, “The proposed code of practice is over 300 pages long, so it is important that the correct process is followed.” Until the new code is formally approved and laid before Parliament for a required 40-day period, organizations are left in a state of uncertainty. Some continue to rely on the 2011 code, which EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner has now declared unlawful. “The content in this version of the code currently in force is based on the EHRC’s previous misinterpretation of the Equality Act 2010,” Falkner explained. She urged that the outdated code be revoked “as soon as possible now that Parliament has returned, so that courts, tribunals and duty bearers are clear that it is no longer to be relied on.”
The draft code contains several controversial provisions. It allows, for example, a birth certificate to be requested by a sports club or hospital if there is “genuine concern” about a person’s biological sex. It also permits the exclusion of transgender people from competitive sport “when necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition,” and suggests that some services might adapt by offering individual lockable toilets usable by both sexes. These measures, according to the EHRC, are meant to provide clarity and legal certainty. Yet, critics argue they risk further marginalizing an already vulnerable community.
Michael O’Flaherty, who visited the UK in July as part of his mandate to monitor human rights in Council of Europe member states, stressed the importance of clear, inclusive guidance. He wrote that it is “crucial” to ensure that “inclusion of trans people can be achieved across all areas, and that exclusion is minimized to situations in which this would be strictly necessary and proportionate.” O’Flaherty also raised concerns about the risk of requiring trans people to “habitually ‘out’ themselves publicly when accessing services or facilities,” warning that such requirements could “significantly increase people’s vulnerability to harassment, abuse and even violence.”
Stonewall echoed these concerns, emphasizing that the EHRC’s guidance must be “clear, practical, and proportionate, and in line with well-established human rights principles.” The group called for government lawyers to assess whether the draft code is consistent with the UK’s international human rights obligations before it is approved by ministers. As Stonewall’s spokesperson put it, “As we have said before, we remain concerned that unless the EHRC’s draft Code is seriously revised, the starting point will be one of exclusion, which could create legal risk for businesses across the UK.”
Meanwhile, the commission has removed an interim update from its website that was published in April 2025, which stated that trans women should not be permitted to use women’s facilities in workplaces or public services. This retraction followed legal action by the campaign group Good Law Project. Its executive director, Jo Maugham, remarked, “My question to them (EHRC) is: if the High Court finds the Guidance unlawful, will you apologise to those whose lives you have so profoundly harmed?” The EHRC has maintained that service providers should continue to seek specialist legal advice, as they did before, to ensure compliance with equality and human rights law.
Downing Street, for its part, responded to the growing controversy by reiterating its commitment to protecting trans people from discrimination and harassment. “We are clear that there are laws in place to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment and we proudly uphold a robust legislative framework,” a spokesperson said on October 15, 2025.
As Parliament prepares to scrutinize the new code of practice—though, notably, MPs and Lords currently have no guaranteed opportunity to debate the guidance—the UK stands at a crossroads. The decisions made in the coming weeks will shape not only the legal landscape for transgender people, but also the nation’s reputation as a defender of human rights on the international stage.
The debate over the definition of sex, the rights of trans people, and the responsibilities of employers and service providers is far from settled. But one thing is clear: the stakes for legal clarity, social inclusion, and personal dignity have rarely been higher.
