My thoughts on the EHRC Guidance
I recently wrote to my MP about the EHRC draft guidance, which is awaiting parliamentary approval, and, if passed, would require organisations and services to exclude trans people from public life. Here is an edited version of that email, including what I consider to be some of the key points in the matter. If you’re interested, read on:
On the Supreme Court Ruling
This guidance is based on the Supreme Court ruling last year that the sex protections in the Equality Act relate to "biological sex". "Biological sex" is not an easily definable binary, but is based on a collection of different primary and secondary sex characteristics, which vary hugely, especially in intersex people.
"Biological sex" has not been given any clear definition by the Supreme Court ruling, creating a huge amount of confusion. If it refers to sex assigned at birth, what does that mean for an intersex person, who was assigned the incorrect sex at birth and has lived their entire life as the 'opposite' sex than that they initially assigned?
If it is based on chromosones, this again excludes intersex people but is also unworkable as the vast majority of people have never undergone chromosonal testing and therefore have no idea what chromosones they have - because chromosones and genitalia/hormonal makeup do not necessarily align.
Anyone with any medical training beyond GCSE level will tell you that "biological" sex is much more complex than genitalia or hormones and in many people is not a binary.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruling completely ignores the fact that a trans person who has been through medical transition is not "biologically" the sex they were assigned at birth.
Hormonal and surgical changes have a profound effect on biology - consider, for example, a trans man who has a testosterone-dominant hormonal system, a penis, a flat chest, no vagina and no womb. How can it make practical or legal sense to call this person a "biological" woman?
The same is true for a trans woman with an estrogen/progesterone-dominant hormonal system, a vagina and breasts. She is not, for any practical purposes, living in a 'male' body.
The new guidance clearly intends for 'gender reassignment' to be treated as a less important characteristic than 'gender' - which effectively removes these protections.
'Gender reassignment' means nothing as a protected characteristic if the law prevents us from 'reassigning' our genders, which it does if having a GRC no longer legally changes someone's gender!
You may not be aware that this case only took place following multiple dismissals by other judges, all of whom upheld the fact that Gender Recognition Certificates were designed specifically to change someone's sex "for all purposes" including the application of the Equality Act.
It was only appealed ad infinitem because the anti-trans hate group 'Sex Matters' were funded by JK Rowling, a billionaire who constantly attacks trans people online, saying that we either are mentally ill or violent predators and who has agreed with people who argue for trans people to be eradicated completely.
The judgement, as is explained in great detail here: https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2025/08/a-detailed-legal-analysis-which.html was made in breach of legal precedent and of EU law.
Furthermore, the judge who made the decision is a neighbour of Ms Rowlings', and refused to speak to any pro-trans groups when making his momentous decision.
After so many rulings that went in the opposite direction, is it not worth at least investigating this judge for bias and looking into the legal weaknesses of the case, which should never have been a matter for a Judge, but for politicians?
Unless pro-trans politicians protest against the Supreme Court ruling and seek to challenge it, more and more laws will be passed using it as precedent to erase trans rights, all by arguing that medical gender transition procedures make no difference to our biological sex, and that 'biological sex' is an easy to determine, binary definition. It is nonsense, and the medical community, EU, Amnesty International and WHO have acknowledged it as such.
On single sex spaces
Contrary to all media and most political discussions of the guidance I have seen, 'single sex spaces' does not refer merely to toilets, which, as is pointed out in the guidance, it would not be 'practical or appropriate' to police.
What concerns me much much more are prisons, hospitals, clubs, exercise groups, refuges, support groups, etcetcetc.
It also covers workplaces, meaning that trans people can be prevented from going to work, driving us into illegal/unsafe ways of making money (many trans women are forced into sex work because of the discriminaton they face in other jobs), and/or forcing us into poverty.
This guidance effectively bans trans people from public life. There is no way of reworking it to make it anything other than discriminatory. It must not be 'softened' or 'reworded', it must be scrapped entirely.
On corruption within the EHRC
An investigation must be launched into the strategic hiring of transphobic and anti-trans (I refuse to use the term 'gender critical', it is like calling homophobes "sexuality-critical") staff in the EHRC - both the previous and current head of that organisation have clearly documented links to these groups.
This is the organisation which is meant to independently rule on how the Equality Act is applied - it cannot do its job if the people in charge hold hate-fuelled beliefs against one of the groups it is meant to protect - you wouldn't accept someone with ties to racist groups leading it, surely?
On the ‘problem’ of threat to cis women
The whole premise of the guidance is that trans people being allowed to use single-sex spaces is a problem and threatens the safety of cis women.
On the contrary, there is zero evidence that this has ever created a problem. Trans people are not harming anyone - we have much lower rates of harming others than most other groups in society, and we are one of the most likely to be harmed by other groups.
This has been turned into a 'problem' by anti-trans hate groups in the last 5-10 years as a cultural backlash to the previous few years of growing acceptance towards LGBTQ+ people.
The same pattern happened towards gay people in the 80s with Section 28, and this wave of backlash will turn out the same way.
There are some women who are so traumatised by men that they genuinely fear being in a single sex space with someone who (they presume) has a penis - this is very sad, but as a mental health professional, I truly believe that women who view penises as weapons are missing the point. Cis men perpetrate the vast majority of sex crimes, not trans women (or trans men) with penises.
The patriarchal culture we live in and the way it tells cis men to view women and girls is the reason that so many women are scared to be alone with men - not the mere existence of a penis.
On the role of the media
The media have taken a huge role in convincing politicians that the views of a few bigoted people are indicative of the views of the country at large - so much so that these views have grown enormously, as people have been manipulated into believing that trans people are a threat, when we are not and never have been. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/128369/pdf/
As recently reported by Amnesty International https://www.amnesty.org.uk/latest/new-uk-analysis-reveals--anti-trans-influence-media-politics/ , 9 articles a day were written about trans people in the past five years - over 17,000 articles total, with an overwhelming bias towards anti-trans views.
We now have over 50 anti-trans hate groups in the UK, when prior to 2017, there were just 3.
This is a manufactured culture war by the right-wing press, and is extremely relevant to the creation of this guidance - something must be done about this.
When will the Labour government do something to prevent the media from telling lies with no consequences?
When will the Labour government address the fact that the BBC, which is meant to be a politically neutral organisation, has conservate-affiliated bosses, and has, over the past few years, been extremely transphobic https://goodlawproject.org/poll-shows-70-of-trans-people-think-bbc-news-is-hostile/, with a private memo circulating recently that reporters would be forced to refer to trans women as "men”?
Ofcom must be able to actually effectively punish media outlets, both for telling lies and for systematically reporting with bias. I don't see any mainstream media outlets either report on any trans-related storyline in an unbiased way or, failing that, declare their biases and controlling interests so the public can make up their own mind.
On the underlying premise
Behind all of the above attacks on trans rights is a deeper premise which must not be ignored.
This is the idea that trans people are not a naturally occurring type of human diversity, but that we are an anomaly.
In order to access gender-affirming care from a gender service in the NHS, I first had to allow myself to be diagnosed with "Gender Dysphoria" - categorised in the DSM-V as a "Mental Disorder".
As a mental health nurse, how do you think it makes me feel, that in this day and age, when the very idea that gay people have a mental disorder is thought of as a horror of the past, yet I am defined medically as Mentally Disordered, just because my gender identity does not align with the sex I was assigned at birth?
This premise is what leads to trans kids being denied medical transition (because politicians like Wes Streeting believe that a dead "gender-distressed" child is a more favourable outcome than an alive trans adult).
This premise is what leads to our living knowledge of who we are being called delusional by mainstream press.
This premise is what leads to our hugely high rates of suicide and of being victims of abuse, assault and murder.
I am a mental health nurse. I know what mental illness looks like. I worked in CAMHS when it was announced that trans children would have to be seen by mental health services before being referred to gender clinics - a CAMHS which was at its' knees because of the amount of actually mentally unwell children that needed our care.
Being trans is not an illness. It is not a problem to be fixed. Allowing trans people timely access to gender-affirming care (especially when this used to include preventing the torturous experience of going through the wrong puberty) results in happy, healthy trans people who can lead normal, fulfilling lives. We are not deviants. We are just normal people.
Other simultaneous attacks on trans rights
In addition to the above points re the EHRC guidance, I hope you are aware of, and acting on, the below issues:
Gender-affirming care for trans youth
The puberty blocker and hormone ban for trans children and young people, which did not follow any medical recommendations (including that of the Cass Review), and has caused widespread harm https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09589236.2025.2521699 and a huge increase in suicides for trans CYP https://goodlawproject.org/new-data-shows-surge-in-trans-kids-suicides-following-healthcare-rollbacks/
The previous health secretary responded to evidence of suicide increase by commissioning a highly selective study which ignored the majority of the suicides so that he could falsely claim that there was no increase - this is a barefaced lie.
The Cass Review
The Cass Review itself, which is currently being used to justify the above removal of evidence-based care for trans CYP, despite it having been widely discredited by many different groups of researchers https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/?
The Levy Review
Levy Review, which, whilst less blatantly transphobic, has ignored deeper issues facing trans healthcare services, missing the chance to affect real change and continuing to pathologise trans people - not surprising, given that it was undertaken by someone with no experience of trans healthcare https://ruthpearce.net/2025/12/22/some-thoughts-on-the-levy-review/
The New Section 28
The new Relationships and Sex Education Guidance, which is Section 28 re-enacted, preventing schools from teaching gender diversity in a positive light, and preventing teachers from teaching children that trans people exist.
It also requires that children are taught that it isn't possible to change sex, and to teach a binary (and therefore scientifically wrong) view on 'biological sex' https://www.wearequeeraf.com/section-28-2-0-new-transphobic-curriculum-restricts-teachers-from-encouraging-trans-pupils-to-understand-their-identity/
Summary
Given the above issues, which are my attempt at the quickest summary I can manage of the current onslaught of anti-trans legislation in the UK, please explain to me why your government should not be considered the most transphobic government we have ever had.
Or, if you agree with me that the above issues amount to systemic legal, political and media discrimination and oppression of trans people, please tell me specifically what you are doing to stop my community from being eradicated.
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security has issued a red flag alert regarding the erosion of trans and intersex rights in the UK, and sums up better than I could the issues faces our community today: https://www.lemkininstitute.com/red-flag-alerts/red-flag-alert-on-anti-trans-and-intersex-rights-in-the-uk - please especially note that it says the actions currently underway fit the definition of the 9th pattern of genocide: "Denial and/or Prevention of Identity".
Please feel free to use this writing yourself, whether writing to an MP or for other purposes. I hope this can be a useful resource.
