On the same day the Equality and Human Rights Commission's (EHRC) new code of practice on single-sex spaces came into force, a legal challenge was launched to block it. The Good Law Project, a non-profit legal campaign group, is taking action against the guidance, which mandates that single-sex services such as toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, and refuges must be used based on biological sex at birth, not gender identity.
Legal Action and Political Backing
The Good Law Project is supporting an unnamed transgender individual and a trans-inclusive organisation in their court action against the government. The challenge has gained significant political support, including from Labour MPs aligned with Andy Burnham. Nadia Whittome MP, who led efforts in Parliament to block the code in June, told Metro: 'The Code will lead to the segregation and exclusion of trans people, and will subject many others to gender policing based on stereotypes. It is harmful and unworkable. Despite 1 in 4 MPs signing my motion opposing the guidance, it is now coming into force without any vote in Parliament taking place. With the Code representing a profound rollback of rights, I am glad that the Good Law Project is challenging its legality through the courts.'
Almost 170 MPs backed Whittome's Early Day Motion against the guidance. Labour MP Richard Quigley also welcomed the legal challenge, stating that the guidance 'has created nothing but confusion and anxiety and appears contradictory when even light scrutiny is applied'. Backbencher Kim Johnson added: 'The Good Law Project is right to warn that this guidance is “incredibly dangerous and likely to cause unlawful discrimination”.'
Cross-Party Opposition
Support for the challenge extends beyond Labour. Liberal Democrat MPs Vicki Slade and Tom Gordon have signalled their desire to see the guidance overturned, and Green Party deputy leader Rachel Millward told Metro she wanted the guidance withdrawn, claiming it left 'trans people facing the very real prospect of being excluded from essential services and public spaces'.
The EHRC's code of practice responds to the April 2025 Supreme Court ruling that the terms 'woman', 'man', and 'sex' in the Equality Act refer to biological sex at birth. The regulator insists it is not creating new law but providing impartial, legally accurate guidance to service providers like cafes and leisure centres. However, the Good Law Project argues the guidance is unlawful and violates human rights.
Key Arguments of the Challenge
The Good Law Project has sent a pre-action letter to the government and EHRC, focusing on sections of the code that advise that any service provided for both cis and trans women must also be provided to cis men, or else it is 'very likely' to be discriminatory. The guidance also states that any service which is not single-sex 'must be open to all service users'. The campaigners argue that trans-inclusive services may be legally justified in some circumstances and that the blanket exclusion of trans women from all women's services is a human rights violation.
This is not the first legal battle over transgender guidance. In February 2026, the Good Law Project lost a challenge against the EHRC's interim update on transgender inclusion, with a judge ruling that the decision to publish the update 'promptly' contained 'no error of law'. The group is vowing to continue that challenge, which focuses on workplace toilet and changing facilities.
Reactions and Responses
Jess O'Thomson, the Good Law Project's trans rights lead, said: 'It's difficult to believe just how far backwards our government has gone on trans human rights. This Labour government pushed through its transphobic guidance in the face of opposition from many MPs, including nearly a hundred of its own backbenchers. It's not just immensely harmful. We think it's unlawful, and completely against human rights. So this challenge is absolutely essential.'
In contrast, sex-based rights groups have welcomed the EHRC code, saying it offers vital, practical instruction for organisations managing single-sex spaces. Maya Forstater of Sex Matters said: 'The law is clear and the code is practical, giving many examples that apply to everyday services.'
An EHRC spokesperson said: 'We are unable to comment on any threat of legal action at this stage.' A Government spokesperson added: 'We cannot comment on ongoing legal proceedings. It would be inappropriate for us to do so.'
