The past week has been a rollercoaster for trans rights in the UK. On Friday 31 July, the High Court rejected a legal challenge to the upcoming trial of puberty-blocking medication. That same day, the court also ruled that police don’t have to perform strip searches based on ‘biological sex’.
On 5 August, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) new transphobic code of practice came into effect. It holds that a trans-inclusive women’s service is “very likely” to be discriminatory on the basis of sex. However, just one day later, the Good Law Project (GLP) has supported a legal challenge against the code.
Puberty blocker trial challenge fails
In spite of the fact that the (already ludicrously transphobic) Cass Review recommended the upcoming Pathways puberty blocker trial for trans youth medicine, transphobes have nevertheless been up in arms against it. Most recently, as GLP explained:
The controversial Bayswater Support Group have teamed up with claimants including Keira Bell, whose legal challenge to young trans healthcare in 2020 was overturned on appeal, following an intervention by Good Law Project. In a case funded by a group with links to the far right, they are asking the High Court for permission to challenge the NHS Pathways trial.
The claimants tried to argue that the medication – widely used throughout the world as part of routine trans care – posed a risk to children. As such, they held that the trial was unlawful.
Instead, Bayswater and its supporters suggested that the puberty blockers be tested on adults. This was, of course, patently ridiculous given that the adults would already have gone through puberty.
On 27 July, GLP announced that both it and trans-led charity Gendered Intelligence would oppose Bayswater’s challenge in court, if necessary. Fortunately, however, a legal battle won’t be necessary in this case. On 31 July, GLP reported:
The court held that the trial was “commissioned by NHS England with conspicuous care”, that the MHRA, the medicines regulator, undertook a “rigorous process” before approving it, and that each child involved in the trial will have been assessed for many months by specialist doctors as likely to receive direct benefit from the treatment.
The judge also noted that the court must be “very cautious” about interfering with medical regulatory decisions.
Gendered Intelligence stated that it was:
glad to hear that clinical trials of safe, effective gender care will be able to continue without interference. We should always put our young people first, and always put healthcare before politics
High Court strip-search ruling
On the same day, 31 July, the High Court also threw out a legal challenge against police strip-search guidance. The challenge, issued by anti-trans pressure group Sex Matters, argued that trans people should always be strip searched by an officer of the trans individual’s sex-assigned-at-birth.
Previous guidance held that officers matching a trans detainee’s gender should perform strip-searches, provided the detainee holds a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). However, following the 2025 Supreme Court ruling invalidating trans people’s gender under the Equality Act, the government issued new guidance.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (known as PACE) governs police powers to perform strip searches. Notably, PACE requires that an officer of the same sex as the detainee performs the search.
While the Supreme Court seemingly invalidated trans people’s right to be treated as a member of their assumed sex — i.e. the purpose of a GRC – the newest guidance argued that:
when requested, a strip search of a trans woman should be conducted by a female police officer. But there’s a significant limitation – both the trans detainee and the police officer have to consent to the search.
One might think that this is fairly straightforward. If a trans person requests an officer of their gender, and the officer is fine with it, this is a non-issue. However, Sex Matters objected, as the GLP explained:
They argued that the guidance creates a “shadow regime” attempting to “contract out” of the PACE framework, as established by the legislature.
Justice Lindon, the presiding judge, rejected the campaign group’s premise. He stated that PACE doesn’t forbid consensual searches outside of the statutory requirement, and voiced doubt that PACE was intended to protect officers rather than detainees. Moreover, he added that:
the effect of the ability to consent to a search by a person of the opposite biological sex is to mitigate the distress which the detained transgender person may feel, rather than to increase it
Anti-trans EHRC code challenged
However, the enactment of the EHRC’s new transphobic code of practice on 5 August overshadowed these two relatively-minor legal victories.
Though the code doesn’t carry legal weight in itself, instead offering an interpretation of equalities law, it encourages a nationwide bathroom ban against trans people, and their wholesale exclusion from single-sex services aligned with their lived gender.
As such, Leigh Day solicitors and GLP are supporting a legal challenge against the guidance. The claimants are currently anonymous, though GLP described them as a “trans person and a trans-inclusive organisation”.
Together, they will argue that the EHRC has fundamentally misunderstood the law, and that its code violates human rights. As an opening salvo, Leigh Day has sent a pre-action letter to both the EHRC and government setting out their argument.
GLP explained that:
Trans-inclusive women’s organisations […] are now faced with a stark choice:
- Ban trans women entirely.
- Stop being a women’s service, and open up to all men.
This blanket instruction puts inclusive organisations in an impossible position. […] The guidance lacks nuance, ignores context and pays no attention to the ways women want to run their own spaces and services.
Jess O’Thomson, GLP’s trans rights lead, added that:
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.
The Canarywill report on the legal argument behind the challenge in more detail tomorrow. For now, however, it’s gratifying to see that neither trans people nor their allies have given up the fight just yet — no matter the forces arrayed against them.
Featured image via the Canary
By Grace
From Canary via This RSS Feed.