When the Supreme Court ruled that “sex” under the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex, many rightly focused on the immediate threat to trans people’s rights and dignity. But the implications of this ruling, and the way some are now interpreting it, go far beyond that. They reach into the heart of how equality law works for everyone.
There’s a growing attempt to frame “single-sex spaces” as spaces where no further justification is needed to exclude people, including trans women, as though naming the category is enough to lock the door. But this flattening of the law is a distortion — not just of what the Equality Act says, but of how it has functioned in practice for over a decade.
If we allow a reading of the law where protected characteristics are treated in isolation — as if race, gender, sexuality, disability and the rest exist in neat, separate silos — then we start to unravel the very fabric of the Equality Act itself. It was never meant to work that way.
The Act recognises that people hold multiple identities. It allows positive action. It permits targeted spaces, services, and events where they’re a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. And that means assessing the context — who the space is for, what need it meets, and how it works in practice. That’s what proportionality means. That’s the test.
So, no: you can’t just declare a space “single-sex” and treat that as a free pass to exclude people based on assumptions about their bodies. That’s not what the law says. And if we go down that path, we set a precedent that threatens all forms of community organising, solidarity, and care — especially those that centre people who live at the sharpest edges of oppression.
In practice, the law has always recognised that people live at the intersection of multiple protected characteristics. Its never prescribed considering them in isolation. From events for Black women, to support groups for disabled youth, or safer spaces for LGBTQ+ survivors of violence — organisations have long created nuanced, context-aware spaces that reflect real lives, not legal silos. Any other interpretation of this isn’t about fairness. It’s about control.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the UK’s equality watchdog, issued guidance after the Supreme Court ruling, suggesting that once a space is defined as “single-sex,” trans people can be excluded from it without any further justification.
But that’s not what the law says.
As it stands the Equality Act allows for single-sex services, yes — but as I’ve already stated only where excluding someone is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. In other words, context matters. You can’t skip the test of proportionality just because someone is trans. That’s not a minor detail — it’s the entire safeguard that stops discrimination from becoming arbitrary or targeted.
By ignoring that safeguard, the EHRC’s guidance not only misstates the law, it risks setting a precedent that undermines the very protections the Act was designed to provide.
The Good Law Project has rightly flagged that this approach may not only misstate the law, it could actively breach human rights. Their challenge to the EHRC’s recent guidance highlights what’s at stake: a future where equality protections work for those who need them most, or one where they’re hollowed out to serve those already in power.
And this isn’t just about trans people. If the body tasked with defending our rights starts weakening the law from within, then no one’s rights are safe. We rely on the EHRC to interpret the law fairly, defend it boldly, and stand up to those who seek to twist it. If they do the opposite, they don’t just fail trans people, they fail all of us.
I stand for solidarity that’s deep, principled, and unapologetically intersectional. I don’t accept a vision of equality that excludes the people it claims to protect. And we shouldn’t allow equality law to be rewritten behind our backs to serve a narrower, more exclusionary agenda.
This is a turning point. Let’s not drift into something smaller. Let’s choose something bolder — and fairer.
