There has been a lot of publicity (and heated debate) about the rights of transgender people and access to single-sex spaces. How would you handle a situation where someone is transitioning at work? How do you balance strongly held but opposing views, and the rights of each group?
This can be a particularly sensitive and emotive topic. Many transgender people have been on a difficult journey, battling the internal incongruity between their biological sex characteristics and their gender identity, as well as the discrimination arising from the prejudices and stigmas within society. Some voices in the trans community advocate for treating gender identity and sex as the same thing (e.g. "a trans-woman is a woman").
There are also strong voices within the feminist movement who are concerned that gender-identity politics are affecting the definition of "woman" and who is able to access single-sex spaces & services. They argue that biological sex and gender identity are not the same thing, and that trying to force-fit them together threatens women's fragile gains in a historically male-dominated society.
In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court decided in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers that the protected characteristic of 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex and that this is not overridden by a trans person's gender identity, even if they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate.
The majority of the public debate has been focused on male-to-female transsexuals and their access to women-only spaces and services. However, it is important to remember that there are also female-to-male transsexuals with the same rights and concerns.
This article is not intended to advocate for or against either position. Instead, we're going to look at how you might handle a situation where one of your staff is transitioning against the backdrop of this debate.
Transitioning can be a different experience for different people, so your support will need to be tailored to the individual. Here are a few things you can do to support a worker who has either started, or completed, a gender transition.
The above is not an exhaustive list, but should give you a good starting point.
The Equality Act 2010 defines nine "protected characteristics". It is unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of any of these nine characteristics.
Two of these characteristics are "sex" and "gender reassignment".
Many people use the terms "sex" and "gender" interchangeably. So what is the difference between these two characteristics?
The Act defines "sex" as biological sex, a binary state of being either a man (male) or a woman (female). There is no spectrum in-between, you're either one or the other.
However, gender identity can exist on a spectrum. The individual's mental identity may differ from their biological sex characteristics. They could be opposite (e.g. male biology, female identity) or somewhere in-between (e.g. a "non-binary" person who doesn't align with either male or female identities).
The Act therefore defines "gender reassignment" as anyone who changes their biological sex characteristics or attributes. This can include both medical interventions or simply changes to outward appearance.
Under the Act, your legal sex is your biological sex, irrespective of your gender identity. However, you can realign your documented sex, e.g. on passports and driving licences, with your gender identity with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). For example, if someone has transitioned from male to female and holds a GRC, both their gender identity and documented sex will be female. However, under the Equality Act 2010, their biological sex will remain male.
One of the challenges you may face when a worker transitions is their access to single-sex spaces. In most workplaces, this means the toilet facilities of the other sex, but could also include changing rooms if workers change into uniforms or there is an on-site gym, and so on.
It is lawful to exclude someone from a single sex space, if they are of the opposite biological sex.
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require employers to provide single-sex facilities unless the facility is a fully enclosed, single-occupant, lockable room. In small workplaces with only a few staff, a single toilet room with a lockable door could be enough as only one person, male or female, could use it at a time. However, once you get above, say, half a dozen people it will soon become clear that more than one toilet facility is required.
It would not be appropriate to have traditional cubicles in a room open to both men and women, even if the cubicle doors are lockable. Separate single-sex facilities would need to be provided.
Single-sex spaces are based on biological sex, and therefore the default position is that a trans person should use the facility aligned with their biological (birth) sex, not their acquired gender identity.
However, it's not quite that black and white. What if the individual has altered their appearance so that they convincingly resemble their gender identity? For example:
Biological women may find the presence of a trans man in their single-sex space objectionable because the trans man so strongly resembles a biological male.
Theoretically, Schedule 3, paragraph 28, of the Equality Act 2010 would allow a trans man to be excluded from a female single-sex space, without it being considered discrimination against the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'. However, it would need to be shown that the circumstances were so serious that excluding the individual was a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.
In this hypothetical scenario, where would the trans man go? They can't use the male facility because they're not a biological male, and they couldn't use the female facility if their presence would reasonably make biological women so uncomfortable that a Schedule 3(28) exclusion applies.
There's also the issue of trans women who pass convincingly, and may be uncomfortable using male single-sex facilities, fearing that other men in that facility would perceive them as biological women and harass them.
The Schedule 3(28) exclusion may not apply in this case, as it's not really a matter of men finding trans women distressing in their space. Harassment is unlawful and should not happen, but that's easier to enforce in a workplace environment than a public one, as anyone harassing another employee would be subject to a disciplinary process.
In any event, trans women may find that they can't use the female facility because they're not biological women, and feel uncomfortable using the male facility.
A further complication is that if a trans person passes convincingly, other people may not even know that they are trans. Forcing a trans person to use the facility aligned with their biological sex basically 'outs' their trans status.
An employer can provide a separate, gender-neutral facility, assuming that there is the space within the structure of the building to create one. However, a gender-neutral facility should be open to anyone who wants to use it, and the employer should not insist on only trans people using it.
Also, a unisex toilet should ideally be a self-contained, private room with a lockable door. The problem is that this requires a lot more space, as each 'private toilet' would be a single occupancy room.
In August 2023, the government announced plans to ban gender neutral toilets in new buildings, unless single-sex spaces are also provided. In other words, you cannot convert the only single sex space into a gender neutral facility. The only exception would be if space is so restricted that a single, fully-enclosed private toilet with a lockable door would be appropriate.
Therefore, employers should not convert a single-sex toilet into a gender neutral toilet unless there are still sufficient single-sex facilities elsewhere in the building to accommodate the users. A gender neutral facility would need sufficient privacy for mixed sex users, such as fully-enclosed floor-to-ceiling cubicles. It requires a lot more than just changing the sign on the door!
If there is already a separate facility for people with disabilities, e.g. an accessible toilet, these are often smaller, unisex facilities. You may be tempted to suggest that the trans-person should use the accessible toilet instead of either the gents or ladies.
Being transgender is not a disability, and trans persons should not be treated as disabled by default. Also, disabled facilities have a number of adaptions to make them accessible to people with mobility issues.
In particular, employers must beware of potentially preventing a disabled person from accessing it when they need to. This is no better than parking in a disabled parking bay when you have no disability.
It may be reasonable to expand the use of disabled facilities which are already unisex by virtue of their construction to trans employees, but only if there are sufficient facilities to accommodate both the disabled and trans population without unreasonable wait times.
Broadly speaking, transphobia is where someone dislikes or is prejudiced against trans people simply on the basis of their transgender identity.
Examples of transphobic behaviours include creating a hostile or intimidating environment for trans people, abuse or harassment of trans people, excluding trans people from discussions that directly affect them, or disadvantaging them in pay and career decisions on the basis of their trans identity.
We should recognise that someone who holds transphobic views will often use privacy, dignity or safety arguments as a smokescreen for their prejudices. That does not mean those arguments are invalid, but they may be exaggerated to satisfy a transphobic agenda.
However, someone with 'gender critical' views should not be considered transphobic just because they hold those views. An example of a gender critical viewpoint would be that gender identity and biological sex are distinct and separate characteristics, i.e. that a biological male will remain a biological male irrespective of how they modify their appearance or choose to identify.
Gender critical views have been ruled as a protected 'philosophical belief' under the Equality Act 2010 and people are entitled to express differing opinions, even if others find those opinions objectionable. Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights also protect freedom of thought and expression.
However, while holding and expressing an opinion may be protected, imposing your opinion on others would not be.
For example, deliberately misgendering a trans person or using someone's pre-transition name ('deadnaming') out of spite would cross the line into harassment. When it comes to beliefs and opinions, it's okay to attack an argument, but never okay to attack the person.
Employers must not discipline workers for holding or expressing gender critical views. It only becomes a disciplinary matter if they harass or discriminate against trans people, or create an environment which is hostile or discriminatory to trans people.
Typically, people would use their observation of a person's appearance to non-consciously select the appropriate pronoun when addressing them.
The human brain performs an enormous amount of non-conscious processing, which includes facial expression and gender characteristic processing. You don't consciously choose to perceive someone as male or female, that categorisation is performed via non-conscious mental processes.
For trans persons that still retain enough visible gender attributes of their biological sex (i.e. they don't convincingly 'pass' as their gender identity), these non-conscious processes often cause them to be misgendered by third party observers.
This is why preferred pronouns are especially valuable to trans people, as they can help others avoid accidentally misgendering them.
However, these non-conscious processes are well-ingrained after eons of evolution, and so it can take considerable conscious effort to override them. Accidental misgendering will still occur from time to time, so it's important not to have a hair-trigger sensitivity if occasionally someone gets it wrong.
In an attempt to show solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community, some organisations have tried to mandate that all workers publish their preferred pronouns in their emails and on their profiles, etc.
Enforcing such a mandate would be problematic. An employer can ask that staff publish their preferred pronouns, but cannot lawfully insist upon it.
One right that everyone shares is the right to be treated with dignity and respect at work. This includes trans people. Nobody should be subjected to bullying or harassment.
Bullying is behaviour that is malicious, offensive and intended to leave you feeling emotionally distressed, intimidated or humiliated.
Harassment can be similar to bullying but is related to a protected characteristic, one of which is 'gender reassignment'.
Harassment can come in many forms and isn't just limited to physical contact. For example:
The intent of the harasser is irrelevant. Harassment is still harassment, even if the person doing it claims they didn’t mean it, or "it was just a joke".
Sexual harassment is unwanted behaviour of a sexual nature which violates your dignity, makes you feel intimidated, degraded or humiliated and creates a hostile or offensive environment.
Again, trans people are sometimes prone to sexual harassment. For example, comments about what sexual activity the trans person engages in, inappropriate and unwelcome touching, and so on.
Trans people can often be victims of harassment, and it's important for employers to be vigilant if someone is going through a transition at work.
Everyone should be treated with dignity and respect.
There is no 'one size fits all' formula you can follow. You may need to consider each situation on its individual merits, taking into account the rights, needs and interests of the parties involved.
The rights of any one group are neither superior nor subordinate to those of any other group.
You should take all reasonable steps to ensure that someone going through a transition, wherever they may be on that journey, does not experience discrimination or harassment.
It is lawful to exclude a trans person from a single sex space, but they should still have access to a suitable alternative facility.
Those with 'gender critical' views are entitled to hold and express their views, provided that, in doing so, they do not discriminate or harass a trans person.
