Mass Lobby 2026 Briefing

Briefing for lobbyists.

Thank you for signing up to the Mass Lobby for Trans Equality. Thursday is about bringing real people and real stories to Westminster and keeping the pressure up for change.

This situation cannot continue, it’s time to fix the law to protect trans equality.

On the day, we will have leaflets with key points to help you with your meetings and experts on hand to chat to - but here is a longer version of our briefing to give some areas to think about ahead of time.

You don’t need to read it all, the key points below are enough, but you may find the other details helpful. The most important thing is that you do not need to be or speak like a policy expert, just speak from the heart and tell real stories - making clear that this situation is unacceptable. This briefing won’t cover every point, but it may be helpful policy context.

Things to consider ahead of the day.

Have a think about the ways this exclusionary policy could impact your life and the lives of people you care about – these are the stories that parliamentarians will be most influenced by. Have a think also about services you may run or use and whether this works for them.

If you’d like to talk through your ideas on the day, we will have experienced policy volunteers who can give you advice about what works best in persuading and influencing politicians. Just ask a Trans+ Solidarity Alliance team member and we will direct you to the right people.

If you can, check whether your MP has already signed EDM 240 by looking it up here.

Key Points.

The new Code of Practice to the Equality Act is set to pass Parliamentary scrutiny without even a vote. It is deeply unjust and urges organisations of all kinds, from hospitals to pubs, to exclude trans people from services and facilities that reflect their gender. In some circumstances trans people may also be excluded from services and facilities that reflect their gender assigned at birth.

For our communities, this code is unsafe. This system of segregation will be based on what people look and act like, meaning that everyone will be exposed to the risk of humiliating and dangerous gender policing.

Trans people will be pushed out of services and spaces they need and our ability to participate in public life will be severely limited. The Code of Practice fatally undermines our protection from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, and the purpose of the Gender Recognition Act.
For organisations, this code is unworkable. This situation exposes businesses, public services and voluntary and community groups to a high risk of complaints and litigation, whatever they choose to do.

This is the government’s mess. They need to fix it, not hide behind the courts.

We want MPs to take the following actions NOW:

If they can sign EDMs (ministers and some others can’t), will they sign EDM 240, tabled by Nadia Whittome MP with cross-party support? This is the formal mechanism available to individual MPs to try and stop the Code of Practice – and an important stand against what it represents.
Write to Ministers and the Prime Minister to say they are profoundly concerned by the rolling back of trans rights under this government, and that they believe that it is time for Parliament to legislate to protect equality for trans people.
Ask parliamentary questions focused on protecting trans people’s rights and defending trans people’s abilities to live safe and dignified lives.
Speak up both inside and outside Parliament in defence of trans people’s rights.
Meet regularly with trans constituents to understand our lived realities.

Q&A

The next section looks at some questions you may be asked or statements posed to you and examples of how to answer them.

The EHRC is ‘just’ implementing the Supreme Court judgement

Judges don’t make law, parliament does, and we are now an international outlier.

The EHRC has chosen the most restrictive possible interpretation of the law and is pushing changes that will have a devastating impact on trans people’s ability to live their lives in a safe and dignified way. Regardless, it is for Parliament and government to make the law - and the job of the courts to interpret it. The current situation is harmful and unsustainable.

We need to see legislation to protect trans equality.

What about women’s right to ‘single sex spaces’?

There is nothing unsafe or undignified about cis and trans women sharing spaces and services. Some cis women would prefer not to share spaces and services with trans women, others are happy to share spaces and services with trans women, and there are many ways to manage this other than banning trans people from vital services.

Before For Women Scotland, gendered services could and did operate on a trans exclusionary basis where it was a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. We should not be excluding anyone in circumstances that are disproportionate or illegitimate.

The government’s own impact assessment warns of the impact of ‘gender policing’ on all women, encouraging suspicion of each other’s gender in a dangerous way.

Can’t trans people just use unisex services / facilities

In many cases unisex services and facilities simply do not exist. For example, in hospital settings many trans people will face delays and issues trying to access a small number of ‘side rooms’ if excluded from gendered wards for the care they need. Many everyday venues like local pubs and restaurants do not have any non-gendered facilities.

The government estimates the costs of implementing this will be £0.6BN and could be higher. It is not offering to pick up that bill for small businesses.

Putting the unworkability aside, segregating minority groups away from others is wrong. Forcing trans people into ‘third’ spaces will out many and expose them to risk of abuse and harassment. The impact of most ‘third’ spaces being accessible ones for disabled people is also not properly considered.

How can I take a position when it’s all so complicated?

Fundamentally, this was a settled area of law and inclusive policy for decades until the Supreme Court ruling. Right now, we are letting a minority group be driven out of public life by a well-funded campaign and this cannot stand. History will look back and judge what our politicians do in this moment.

More detail.

You do not need to read past here, but if you would like to prepare more please read on.

The Code of Practice.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s new Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations was laid by the Minister for Women and Equalities on 21st May.

Now it has been approved by the government and laid under the negative procedure, it is on track to become statutory automatically - without a debate or a vote in Parliament.

146 Members of Parliament have signed a motion to ‘disapprove’ the guidance, a form of ‘prayer’ motion, in an attempt to stop it and register formal opposition.

It sets out a wide ranging system of segregation, with trans people excluded from services and spaces that reflect their gender, and in some cases also excluded from services and spaces that reflect their gender assigned at birth.

This mass lobby is both about the guidance, and not about the guidance. We think the guidance is harmful and could have been better even after FWS - but we also think the legislation must change to ensure positions like this are not able to be advanced.

Daily impacts on trans people.

The Code of Practice will cause significant harm to trans people across the UK. It will:

Tell providers to limit access to all gendered services in the same way regardless of proportionality, excluding trans people from spaces and services they have used for decades. The previous situation was that trans people would be included by default, but could be excluded where this was a ‘proportionate means to a legitimate aim’ if the provider felt necessary.
Leave some trans people in a position where they are excluded from all gendered spaces - something the government’s Equality Impact Assessment describes as ‘double exclusion’.

Even where this is not done, forcing trans people into spaces aligned with their sex assigned at birth is unsafe and unwanted. Again, the EIA recognises this, saying that trans women in particular “could face a disproportionate risk of violence and sexual assault”. Trans people already often self-exclude, and this will make it worse.
Create a hostile environment for anyone who doesn’t conform to gender norms, enabling harassment and abuse. Again, this is recognised by the EIA which states this “could lead to increased harassment for trans people and cisgender people who do not conform to traditional gender stereotypes”
Out trans people en masse, making it impossible for them to live their lives with the privacy envisaged in UK law.

Undermining human-rights

The Code of Practice undermines trans people’s human rights under domestic and international law. It:

Seriously undermines trans people’s protection from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
Seriously undermines the UK’s Gender Recognition Act 2004, which was passed on the basis that somebody’s trans status is kept private and that a gender recognition certificate changes a person’s legal sex ‘for all purposes’.
Leaves trans people in an ‘intermediate zone’ (Goodwin v UK & I v UK) - unable to access meaningful legal gender recognition.
Is in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Article 8 which protects private and family life and Article 14 which protects against discrimination (also protected under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)
Undermines all of our rights to freedom of association (Article 11 ECHR) by limiting the ability of cis and trans people to freely associate (except in those circumstances that meet the technical legal definition of an ‘association’, where the EHRC suggests but does not clearly say that they still may only operate as, for example, ‘men and all trans people’, which may not be in line with their preference and historical structure.)

Implementation of this code is likely to lead to further significant human rights breaches, particularly areas like healthcare, where segregation of trans patients may lead to adverse health outcomes. Trans patients may wait longer before being admitted to hospital, and many be segregated in side rooms away from the specialist care they need. We are also really concerned about the interpretation the EHRC is pushing of prison rules, which currently operate on a case-by-base inclusive basis because of horrific incidents in the past.

The impact on organisations.

This code of practice remains unworkable for organisations of all kinds. It will be very difficult for services to operate in line with their values, including trans people as they always have.

Compliance will be expensive, with government estimating £0.6BN of investment needed.

This seems likely to be higher due to a regulatory aversion to common gender-neutral toilets where people wash their hands next to one another. There is no funding allocated for this.

And whatever they do, organisations will be at high risk of litigation - for discriminating against trans people, for not discriminating against trans people, and for any negative consequences that flow from their decisions.

Inclusive organisations?

The Code of Practice leaves inclusive organisations in a position where they will feel pressured to act against their values and exclude trans people (as we have already seen happen in high profile cases). It:

Does not give organisations any legally clear guidance on remaining trans inclusive where they provide services or facilities separately or only for men or women
Places organisations in the impossible position of being responsible for policing the gender of their customers and service users, causing significant problems for employees, customers and service users alike
Leaves organisations at risk of litigation from all sides: for discriminating against trans people and for not discriminating against trans people, racking up legal bills and ensuring the issue remains in the headlines for years to come.

Wider erosion of trans people’s rights.

The Code of Practice has been laid in a wider context of other policy changes that have an adverse effect on trans people in the UK:

Access to healthcare

The UK has criminally banned most access to puberty blockers, and is currently consulting on whether it should ban the prescription of hormones to 16 and 17 year olds (currently only looking at NHS care, but we are concerned they could attempt another criminal ban). If this policy takes hold it will mean that trans young people will have no access to international best practice gender-affirming healthcare on the NHS or via regulated private providers.

Trans adults remain able to access gender-affirming healthcare on the NHS in theory - but waiting lists for that care are many years long. This has significant impacts for trans people’s wellbeing and mental health, and is unnecessary when better models exist.

Trans Children and Young People

The government has already implemented guidance on relationships and sex education that will make it more difficult for teachers to speak about trans lives and identities with confidence.

Now it is consulting on a new draft of Keeping Children Safe in Education (the statutory safeguarding guidance for schools and colleges) that would implement strict segregation of trans pupils from facilities that reflect their gender as well as from lessons that are separated into boys and girls.

This guidance also attempts to significantly restrict the ability for trans children to socially transition and be accepted at school. This is cruel and harmful to trans youth.