The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is under pressure to extend its consultation on updates to its ‘Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations’ following the ruling in the Supreme Court as to the meanings of “man”, “woman”, and “sex” for the purposes of the Equality Act.

The judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 received significant media attention when it was handed down. The Court ruled that, for the purposes of interpreting the Equality Act 2010, references to “woman”, “man” or “sex” referred to biological sex. As such, for example, a transgender woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate does not fall withing the definition of “woman” for the purposes of the Act.

Amid the media attention, many organisations were left wondering what that meant for them. The first port of call would ordinarily be the EHRC’s Code of Practice which is one of three “authoritative sources of guidance on the Equality Act, and applies to those who provide services to the public whether in the public or private sector, and whether or not for payment”. The Code of Practice is of critical importance since it can be relied on in legal proceedings brought under the Equality Act, and courts and tribunals must take into account any part of the Code that appears to them relevant to any questions arising in proceedings.

Soon after the Supreme Court issued its judgment, the EHRC published a short ‘interim update on the practical implications’ of the judgment, which was quickly followed by a more thorough consultation.

The consultation contains a number of important proposed updates to the Code of Practice, including significant changes to its sections concerning competitive sport and separate and single-sex services for men and women (including guidance on changing rooms and toilets).

The consultation was initially only due to run for two weeks, but after protestations at the short timeframe it was extended to six. However, many have raised concerns that this is still not long enough because of the importance of the issues raised in the consultation (and the effects the proposed changes will have), as well as the time it will take to engage relevant organisations and representatives of various groups. Liberty went as far as to launch a judicial review, arguing that the consultation period should be a minimum of 12 weeks, but the High Court rejected their case.

Reports indicate that Liberty plans to appeal, but as it stands the consultation period ends next week on 30 June 2025. To read the consultation in full, click here.