Reform to punish councils that flout Supreme Court ruling on single-sex spaces
Reform UK has said it would take action against councils that refuse to follow the Supreme Court ruling and subsequent guidance on single-sex spaces. The proposal highlights a growing political dispute over how local authorities should apply equality law while balancing sex-based rights and protections for transgender people.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2025 that “woman”, “man” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. Updated guidance directs service providers to organise single-sex facilities such as toilets and changing rooms on that basis, though some councils have questioned whether they can lawfully decline to implement it.
- Reform UK proposes sanctions for non-compliant councils.
- The ruling defines sex in the Equality Act as biological sex.
- Some councils dispute the guidance’s implementation.
New here? Start with this
The Equality Act 2010 is the main law protecting people in Britain from discrimination. It covers areas including employment, education and public services, and allows some services and facilities to be provided separately for women and men where this is justified.
The Supreme Court is the UK’s highest court for most legal cases. Its 2025 ruling said that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, the terms “woman”, “man” and “sex” refer to biological sex, affecting how rules on single-sex spaces are interpreted.
Councils run many local services and must follow the law, but they also have duties towards transgender people, who are protected from discrimination. The issue has therefore become part of a wider political and legal debate about how to provide privacy, safety and equal access in shared public facilities.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that councils have a duty to comply with a clear Supreme Court interpretation of the Equality Act and with lawful guidance that follows it. They say enforcement would protect sex-based single-sex spaces, provide consistency across the country, and prevent local authorities from substituting their own policy preferences for democratically enacted law and binding court judgments. The underlying value is legal certainty alongside privacy, dignity and safeguarding for all users of such facilities.
The case against
Opponents argue that punitive action against councils could discourage careful, locally informed efforts to reconcile sex-based rights with the safety, dignity and inclusion of transgender residents. They may contend that the ruling and guidance leave difficult practical questions, including how services should avoid discrimination or exclusion, and that councils should be able to seek legal clarity rather than face sanctions for raising legitimate concerns. The underlying value is proportionate implementation of the law that protects transgender people as well as other service users.