Pride Month is a time to celebrate progress, recognise ongoing challenges, and engage thoughtfully with developments that affect LGBTQIA+ communities.
One of the most challenging debates centres on how the law reconciles different protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, particularly “sex”, often framed as protection for women based on biological sex, and “gender reassignment” (as defined in the Equality Act 2010) protecting trans people.
Tensions arise in balancing the rights of these two groups, particularly where single-sex spaces or services are involved. Women’s Rights Advocates argue that certain services must remain biologically female-only to function safely for example survivors of male violence may experience distress or re-traumatisation in the presence of someone they perceive as male (which may include some trans women). In reverse, Trans advocates argue that trans people are vulnerable to violence, harassment and exclusion and, excluding them from such spaces can undermine their dignity and safety.
A significant recent legal development in the UK is the Supreme Court’s judgment of 16 April 2025 in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, which held that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex.
This development has been experienced differently across communities, particularly trans people who may feel concerned about its practical impact.
In practical terms, the Court was concerned that a different interpretation would create difficulties in areas such as:
- The provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity would be unworkable.
- The protections given to those with the protected characteristic of sexual orientation, e.g. ability to have lesbian-only spaces and associations, would be weakened.
- Separate spaces and single sex services (changing rooms, hostels and medical services) would not be able to function coherently.
- It would cause confusion and impracticability in the provision of single sex characteristic associations and charities, e.g. women’s fair participation in sport, public sector equality duty and the armed forces.
The Supreme Court noted that there are other protections in the Equality Act specifically for trans people, for example “gender reassignment” is a protected characteristic. Further, that trans people can still rely on discrimination on the basis of “sex”, e.g. trans woman could claim sex discrimination because she is perceived to be a woman.
The Supreme Court pointed out that interpreting woman and man by reference to the gender reassignment could result in differential rights between trans people with a Gender Recognition Certificate and those without; and those seeking to perform their obligations under the Equality Act would have no obvious means of distinguishing the two sub-groups.
There is a delicate balance to achieve in equality legislation where different protected characteristics intersect and the Court’s position is that the judgment clarifies how different protections operate alongside one another, rather than removing legal protections.
Following this decision, on 21 May 2026 The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has updated its statutory Code of Practice to reflect the ruling. If Parliament does not disapprove the code within 40 days, it will come into force.
An important practical implication of the decision is that single-sex and separate-sex services based on biological sex are justified e.g. refuges, prisons, toilets or counselling services.
However, providers and organisations will need to balance competing rights proportionately and lawfully and on a case-by-case basis when deciding how services are delivered, i.e. is it a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. Balancing rights involves careful evidence-based decision-making, sensitivity to all individuals involved and avoiding overly simplistic or absolutist positions. Organisations may need to review their policies and guidance to ensure compliance with the EHRC guidance.
There is ongoing significant public and political debate on this decision and the implications for the LGBTQIA+ community. This issue is particularly complex because it affects deeply personal aspects of identity; relates to trauma and safeguarding considerations; involves strongly held beliefs and evolving legal interpretation, as guidance and case law develop. It is also important to recognise that there is no consensus, even within groups.
During Pride Month, these discussions highlight the importance of approaching legal and social change with empathy, respect, and a willingness to listen to differing experiences.
Code of practice for services, public functions and associations | EHRC
Here to help
At FJG, our family law team is committed to providing expert, compassionate advice during one of life’s most challenging transitions. If you’re going through separation or divorce, we are more than happy to help you through that process; start on the right foot by seeking legal advice from our Family Law team.
Lisa O’Boyle is a Senior Associate Solicitor in our Family Law Team, specialising in family matters including children, divorce, financial matters arising upon divorce and domestic abuse.
For further advice on any aspect of family law or to discuss meeting with a family lawyer, please contact one of our team in our Colchester, Clacton or Chelmsford offices on 0845 543 5700, or via our online enquiry form.