EHRC Code of Practice - Please take our survey
- Joe Brown
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
Hello Journey members
We are writing to you to ask that you spare us a few minutes to provide feedback on the EHRC draft Code of Practice which would have a significant negative impact on trans and nonbinary people, both as transport workers and as service users.
We know that many people within Journey's membership will be affected by, or have views on the draft Code of Practice published by the EHRC, which is under consideration in Parliament. We are currently within a 40-day period during which MPs can raise objections to the draft Code.
As a membership network which isn't affiliated to any one organisation, we have an opportunity to be a voice for LGBTQ+ people working in the transport sector, and we want to make sure what we say publicly reflects our members views and experiences. Therefore we are asking for your views as a trans or non-binary person working in the sector, or as an LGBTQ+ member of any transport organisation, on how the draft Code could affect you personally, or professionally. This could be in how you, yourself, access services, or how you perceive the changes could affect services you manage in your job.
Issues raised in the Equality Impact Assessment of the draft Code include:
Exclusion: The updated Chapter 13 provides guidance on when it is lawful to exclude trans people from services aligned with their acquired gender (e.g. domestic violence refuges, hospital wards, and changing rooms) based on their biological sex. It also covers competitive sport which may leave trans people with access to sport. Chapter 12 also provides guidance on restricting membership to an association based on those sharing one or more protected characteristics. Some organisations such as the Women’s Institute and Girl Guiding have already made the decision to restrict membership to biological women only. The Code does explain where membership could be restricted based on sharing multiple characteristics and therefore provides an opportunity for trans inclusion, e.g. a women and trans women association.
‘Double exclusion’: It is possible that trans people could be barred from both the space aligned with their gender (because of their sex) and the space aligned with their birth sex (because of possessing the protected characteristic of gender reassignment), effectively leaving them with no service at all.
Alternative provision: While the Code states it is “unlikely to be proportionate” to leave a trans person with no service (especially for essentials like toilets), providers may lack the funding or space to offer ‘third-space’ or gender-neutral alternatives.
Involuntary disclosure: New guidance explains how service providers can request information about an individual’s sex at birth. This may force trans people to “out” themselves in public or professional settings. Similarly trans people have expressed concern – as in the Good Law Project litigation against EHRC – that having to use disabled toilets will ‘out’ them.
Policing of gender: Potential ‘policing’ of gender presentation, which could lead to increased harassment for trans people and cisgender people who do not conform to traditional gender stereotypes.
Safeguarding risks: Concern that excluding trans women from female services could mean they have to use male services, where they could face a disproportionate risk of violence and sexual assault (although this will depend on the nature of the service in question).
Relations between groups: The debate on single sex services and the treatment of trans people is particularly divisive at this time. The Code of Practice may exacerbate these tensions. This may be somewhat mitigated through careful communications surrounding the Code’s publication.
Some resources to understand more:
Have your say: Please respond in the free text box in the survey below with your views on the Code. You can also choose to check the box to say whether you're responding based on your personal experience, or professional impact on your role. Please anonymise references to specific organisations you work for.
We will then draft a letter based on your views, which we intend to publish online and send to MPs interested in transport issues. This information will be held anonymously and deleted once we've drafted the letter.
Many thanks for your time to provide feedback: we hope that a strong collective voice from the transport sector directed at the right people in parliament could play a part in effectively challenging the draft Code of Practice through a formal objection.
Comments