The previous EHRC anti-trans guidance was a shitshow – so now it’s back to the drawing board

On 27 January, the Guardian reported that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is rewriting its disastrous single-sex space guidance.

The article characterised the new EHRC chair, Mary-Ann Stevenson, as being more “constructive” than her predecessor. The problem, however, isn’t that Kishwer Falkner – the previous head of the equalities watchdog – was a transphobic zealot (though she was).

Rather, the idea that the state can simply ban trans people from public spaces aligned with their identity is fundamentally unworkable.

The EHRC and a disastrous attempt

Under Kishwer Falkner, the EHRC published interim anti-trans guidance that called for a complete ban on trans people using gendered spaces aligned with their identity.  Further, it stated that trans people could also be banned from spaces aligned with their assigned sex.

Falkner submitted her draft of the anti-trans guidance to the government back in September 2025. However, as of this date, women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson hasn’t yet made it into law. The EHRC also took down its interim guidance in October, leaving trans people and service providers in the dark.

Then, in November, the guidance leaked to the press – and it was, predictably, an absolute shitshow. It suggested that service providers should guess who was trans based on “physical appearance or behavior”. So, as I wrote at the time:

There’s no way to tell whether or not someone is trans by official documentation. As such, a service provider is allowed to exclude someone from single-sex spaces purely according to how they look and act.

Therefore, someone doesn’t have to be trans in order to be excluded under the new anti-trans guidance. So stating that “trans women could be questioned” etc. isn’t actually true, is it? Anybody could be questioned, and anybody could be excluded, based purely on “concerns raised by others”.

The redraft

As such, it’s unsurprising that Phillipson hasn’t yet made Falkner’s unworkable attempt into law. Likewise, it’s also understandable that she appears to have sought a redraft.

Labour MP Rachel Taylor, a member of the Commons women and equalities committee, said:

The EHRC’s interim guidance was disproportionate, unfair and unworkable, so I would welcome efforts by the government to work with the new EHRC chair to ensure the final guidance upholds the rights of women and trans people and can reasonably be implemented by businesses.

Legally, the EHRC can’t simply decide to amend a code after it’s been submitted. Instead, ministers have to reject a previous draft and request changes. However, a spokesperson for the EHRC stated that the watchdog was:

convinced that our updated services code of practice is both legally accurate and as clear as it is possible to be.

The commission is now waiting to hear whether Phillipson will accept the redrafted code. Crucially, the guidance would need to be legally sound in order to avoid legal challenges. This, in turn, might be informed by the Good Law Project’s ongoing challenge against the interim code.

However, in case anyone thought the government might lessen its transphobic bent for a moment, the Guardian reported that:

Any changes will not water down what the government says is a commitment to single-sex spaces, which was the central repercussion of the supreme court ruling. However, the hope is that a more pragmatic approach could limit the impact on trans people, and avoid excessive costs and confusion for businesses in terms of changes to toilets and changing rooms.

‘Deliberate and strategic continuation’

The article characterised Stevenson, who took over as EHRC chair in December, as “more open to listening to concerns” than her predecessor, Kishwer Falkner. It also praised her “background in women’s rights”. This is typical of the Guardian’s downplaying of trans issues.

In reality, staff members at the commission at the same time as Falkner branded her “transphobic,” “anti-LGBT+” and an “enemy of human rights”. The Lemkin Institute – an international organisation dedicated to opposing genocide – penned an open letter against her.

Likewise, whilst Stevenson is marginally less bombastic in her bigotry, she’s still actively hostile towards trans people. She donated money to ‘gender critical’ lawyer Alison Bailey’s case, met with trans-hostile feminist group FiLiA back in 2020, and signed a declaration opposing Gender Recognition Act reforms.

When Stevenson was appointed as the new chair, campaign group the Trans Advocacy and Complaint Collective stated that:

Trans communities and our allies condemn this appointment as a deliberate and strategic continuation of the EHRC’s transformation into a tool of political control rather than human rights defence. As many organisations, including TACC, have made clear, this decision represents not neutrality, but complicity. It is another calculated move in the state-sanctioned campaign to exclude trans people from public life and to roll back the protections that once existed under UK equalities law.

Practical bigotry is still bigotry

So, sure – Stevenson is marginally more practical than Falkner in how she might plan to implement her bigotry. She’s more concerned with little details like her code ‘being legal’ and ‘actually possible to implement’ than her predecessor. However, she’s still fully aligned with the government’s newfound hatred for trans people.

Unfortunately for her, the new EHRC chair faces an uphill struggle. Whilst Falkner’s guidance was a ridiculous farce, it’s also difficult to see how else the government could possibly implement a ban on trans people using facilities aligned with their gender.

Quite simply, there is no legal way to tell whether or not a person is trans. Any attempt to do so will, inevitably, also impact intersex people, butch lesbians, femme gays, and gender non-conformists of all types, leaving it open to legal challenge.

It’s almost as if trying to implement a law which deliberately singles out a minority for public exclusion and ridicule is impossible in a society that wishes to pretend it has any concept of equality or basic human decency. Funny, that.

Featured image via the Canary