SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE

A GUIDE TO NAVIGATING UK LAW ON SINGLE-SEX TOILET, WASHING & CHANGING FACILITIES IN WORKPLACES & IN SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC

Something for Everyone – Single Sex Facilities and the Law – Legal Feminist Download

DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS ABOUT SINGLE SEX FACILITIES

1. If an employee thinks that her employer’s practices or policies in relation to single sex facilities in the workplace are discriminatory, she can bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal under the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”). Similar EqA claims about single sex facilities can be brought in the County Court by users of services which are open to the public, like swimming pools, libraries, hospitals and restaurants.

2. The types of EqA claim which are most likely to be brought in the Employment Tribunal or County Court about single sex facilities are claims for indirect discrimination and claims for harassment related to sex. Other possible claims, which are not dealt with here, are for direct sex discrimination and for sexual harassment (which differs slightly to harassment related to sex).

Indirect discrimination

3. Indirect discrimination claims which might be brought by people who wish to access single sex facilities include:

> A claim by a female employee or service user for indirect sex discrimination brought on the basis that women are more disadvantaged by having to undress, shower or use the toilet in the presence of males than the other way around.

> A claim for indirect religion or belief discrimination brought by an employee or service user who adheres to a religion, such as Islam or some forms of Judaism or Christianity, which prohibits or discourages undressing or being in intimate proximity with people of the opposite sex.

> A claim for indirect religion or belief discrimination brought by an employee or service user with a protected philosophical belief, such as gender critical belief, which recognises the importance and relevance of the differences between the biological sexes.

> A claim for indirect age discrimination brought by an older employee or service user who abides by standards of modesty in relation to undressing, using the toilet or washing in proximity with people of the opposite sex which are more prevalent in older age groups.

4. At the same time, people who wish to access single sex facilities provided for the opposite sex may bring indirect gender reassignment discrimination claims, if their employer or service provider requires trans people to use facilities according to their biological sex. Many (though not all) people who identify as the opposite sex have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. A claim of this sort would be brought on the basis that (for example) it is more disadvantageous for a man who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to use the men’s facilities than it is for a man who does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

5. In an indirect discrimination claim, if the employee or service user shows that the practice or policy relating to single sex facilities is, on the face of it, indirectly discriminatory, it is then open to the employer or service provider to show that the practice or policy is nonetheless justified because it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (“the justification defence”).

Harassment related to sex

6. This is unwanted treatment related to sex which causes the “proscribed effect”. The proscribed effect is that the treatment violates the employee or service user’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her. Harassment can be a one-off event or a series of events or an ongoing practice. Thus an employee or service user can complain either about one or more incidents in which she has encountered a male in the women’s facilities or about a policy or practice of permitting this to happen, so long as she can establish that what she is complaining about is “conduct related to sex”. At present there is no legal authority which says that allowing males to use women’s facilities is “conduct related to sex”, but the point is being argued in Peggie v NHS Fife. The test for whether conduct is “related to” a protected characteristic is a broad one.

7. It is not enough for the employee or service user simply to say that she feels the proscribed effect; it must be reasonable for her to have felt it. This is usually the key issue in harassment claims. In considering this, the court or tribunal must take into account all the circumstances of the case.

WORKPLACES: THE 1992 HEALTH & SAFETY REGULATIONS

Facilities required in workplaces by the 1992 Regulations

8. The law which mandates that single sex facilities must be provided in workplaces is not contained in the EqA. It is contained in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (“the 1992 Regs”), by which workplaces must have sanitary conveniences (toilets) (Reg 20) and washing facilities (Reg 21). They must also have changing facilities if these are needed because of the type of work done in the workplace or for health reasons (Reg 24). All these facilities must be both “suitable” and “sufficient”.

9. The facilities must be for the use of all people who work in the workplace, not just employees. This includes any type of worker or self-employed contractor.

10. Toilet, washing and changing facilities in workplaces will only be “suitable” for the purposes of the 1992 Regs if there is separate provision for men and women.

11. The only exceptions to the single sex rule for workplace facilities are:

> Toilets: toilets can be in separate lockable rooms (not cubicles).

> Washing: if the only washing required is of hands, forearms and face, the washing facility may be shared between men and women. Otherwise, washing facilities can be in individual lockable rooms that are intended for single-person use (not cubicles).

> Changing: changing rooms can be shared between men and women if separate provision is not necessary for reasons of propriety. Where separate provision is necessary for reasons of propriety, this can be in a single changing room as long as it can be used separately by men and women (i.e. at different times).

12. The 1992 Regs do not say how many facilities must be provided in a workplace to be “sufficient”, other than in the case of old, unmodernised factories, where there must be at least one suitable toilet for use by females only for every 25 female workers, and the same for males.

13. Employment Tribunals do not have jurisdiction to determine complaints about breaches of the 1992 Regs. The principal method of enforcement is via the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”), which has powers to impose sanctions on employers.

14. In theory it might be possible for an individual to bring a claim for a breach of the 1992 Regs in the County Court on the basis that the employer has failed to comply with a statutory duty, but since the 1992 Regs do not themselves provide for a civil remedy it would be difficult to persuade a court to permit such a claim to proceed, particularly where an enforcement mechanism is provided through the HSE.

Equality Act complaints about single sex facilities in workplaces

Indirect discrimination

15. Although the 1992 Regs cannot be relied on directly in an Employment Tribunal claim (see §§13-14 above), they are pivotal in Employment Tribunal claims for indirect discrimination under the EqA about the provision of single sex facilities in the workplace.

16. If an employee brings an indirect discrimination claim about a failure to provide single sex facilities (as described at §3 above), the existence of the 1992 Regs makes it very difficult – probably impossible – for the employer successfully to invoke the justification defence (see §5 above). To be successful, the employer would have to show that it had a legitimate reason for contravening the mandatory statutory duty in the 1992 Regs and that it did so in a proportionate way. It is difficult to see how this argument could conceivably work.

17. Similarly, if an employee brings an indirect gender reassignment discrimination claim about an employer’s refusal to allow him or her to use the facilities provided for the opposite sex (as described above), the fact that the 1992 Regs mandate single sex facilities in workplaces means that the employer’s justification is virtually watertight.

Harassment related to sex

18. The existence of the 1992 Regs is also significant in relation to claims of harassment related to sex which are about the provision or use of single sex facilities in workplaces (as described at §§6-7 above), even though employees cannot rely on the 1992 Regs directly in the Employment Tribunal.

19. In a claim of this sort, one of the “circumstances” that will have to be taken into account by the Employment Tribunal (see §7 above) is the fact that the 1992 Regs mandate single sex facilities in the workplace. It is very likely that an employee would be able to persuade a Tribunal that it was reasonable for her to experience a breach of this law as a violation of her dignity, since the law itself recognises that single sex facilities can be necessary for reasons of “propriety”.

The meaning of “woman” & “man” in the 1992 Regulations

People without Gender Recognition Certificates

20. There is no law which allows people to self-identify into the opposite sex for the purposes of the 1992 Regs, or indeed for the purposes of any other UK legislation (see For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2023] CSIH 37). The protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the EqA protects most trans people from discrimination, but it does not mean that trans people must be treated as though they are the opposite sex, whether under the 1992 Regs or for any other legal purpose. Only a Gender Recognition Certificate (“GRC”) can have this effect. Thus under the 1992 Regs a woman is, at least, anybody who was born female and does not have a GRC, and a man is, at least, anybody who was born male and does not have a GRC.

21. This means that the 1992 Regs do not allow employers to provide toilet, washing or changing facilities only on a self-ID basis. If an employer allows males who do not have GRCs to use a women’s facility, it will no longer be providing a facility which is for women only. This will amount to a failure to comply with the 1992 Regs unless there are suitable and sufficient alternative women’s facilities available elsewhere in the workplace which are not open to any males who do not have GRCs.

People with Gender Recognition Certificates

22. For people who do have GRCs the position is unclear. Under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“GRA”) the consequence of a person being awarded a GRC is that his or her sex changes to the opposite sex “for all [legal] purposes” (GRA s.9(1) read with Forstater v CGD Europe [2022] ICR 1). However there are some exceptions to this principle, so there are some laws under which males with GRCs do not have to be treated as women (and vice versa). It is arguable that the 1992 Regs should or must be treated as an exception. If they are, then men with GRCs should be treated in the same way as men without GRCs in relation to single sex facilities in the workplace (see §§20-21 above).

23. In the For Women Scotland case the Supreme Court is currently deciding whether the principle in the GRA applies to the EqA. The Court is not deciding whether the principle applies to the 1992 Regs, so the judgment will not bring certainty about whether employees with GRCs should have access to opposite-sex facilities in workplaces. However, it is likely to give a steer as to how “woman” and “man” should be defined for the purposes of legislation other than the EqA, such as the 1992 Regs.

24. If it can clearly be inferred from the Supreme Court judgment that a GRC does not change a person’s sex for the purposes of the 1992 Regs, then the position for employees with GRCs will be the same as it is now for those without GRCs (see §§20-21 above).

25. If it can clearly be inferred from the Supreme Court judgment that a GRC does change a person’s sex for the purposes of the 1992 Regs, then an employer will have to ensure that there are sufficient women’s facilities in the workplace which can be used by males with GRCs and sufficient men’s facilities which can be used by women with GRCs. However, that does not mean that there will be no legal route for complaint from employees who wish to have access to single sex facilities on a biological sex basis. These employees might still bring complaints arguing that it amounts to indirect discrimination or harassment related to sex (as described at §§3-7 above) for the employer not to also provide single sex facilities on a biological sex basis.

SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC: THE EQUALITY ACT 2010

Facilities permitted in services by the Equality Act

26. There is no equivalent to the 1992 Regs for members of the public who use services such as hospitals, swimming pools, restaurants etc. Instead the position is governed entirely by the EqA, and is considerably more complicated.

27. The starting point is that under the EqA it is usually unlawful direct sex discrimination to exclude service users of one sex from a facility. However there are exceptions to this rule which allow a service provider to provide single sex facilities for one of five permissible reasons. These reasons include that “the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex”. Another permissible reason is that the service is a hospital or a similar setting.

28. It is not enough for one of these five reasons to apply. It must also be justifiable in the particular circumstances for the facility to be provided only to women or only to men. The service provider must be able to show that having a facility only for women or only for men is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Equality Act complaints about single sex facilities in services

Indirect discrimination

29. The exceptions in the EqA for single sex facilities are permissive rather than mandatory, which distinguishes them from the rules for workplaces in the 1992 Regs. Thus a service provider does not have to provide single sex facilities for service users. However, a service provider which fails to do so could find itself facing a complaint of indirect discrimination from a service user of one of the types described in §3 above.

30. Here there is no mandatory statutory duty which strengthens the service user’s case, as there is for employees under the 1992 Regs (see §22 above). Nonetheless, depending on the facts and evidence in the case, the strong societal tradition in favour of single sex facilities mean that it will still be difficult for the service provider successfully to invoke the justification defence (see §5 above). If the complaint is of indirect sex discrimination, other factors favouring the complainant should include the overwhelming evidence of the dangers that men as a class statistically pose to women and the evidence of increased risk to women in unisex facilities. For similar reasons it will be difficult for a service user to succeed in an indirect gender reassignment discrimination claim based on a wish to access the facilities provided for the opposite sex.

Harassment related to sex

31. Again, depending on the facts and evidence, it is likely to be difficult for a service provider to defend a claim of harassment related to sex (see §§6-7 above) by arguing that it was not reasonable for a female service user to feel that her dignity was violated by having to share facilities with males. As above, compelling factors include the societal tradition in favour of single sex facilities, the overwhelming evidence of the dangers that men as a class statistically pose to women and the evidence of increased risk to women in unisex facilities.

The meaning of “woman” & “man” in the Equality Act

People without Gender Recognition Certificates

32. Under the EqA a woman is, at least, anybody who was born female and does not have a GRC and a man is, at least, anybody who was born male and does not have a GRC (see For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2023] CSIH 37). There is no law which allows people to self-identify into the opposite sex for the purposes of the EqA or for the purposes of any other UK legislation. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the EqA protects most trans people from discrimination, but it does not mean that trans people must be treated as though they are the opposite sex, whether under the EqA or for any other legal purpose. Only a GRC can have this effect.

33. Thus if a service provider allows males who do not have GRCs to use the women’s facilities:

> The facilities will no longer qualify as single sex facilities under the exceptions in the EqA (see §§26-28 above).

> Therefore the service provider will have no permission in law to exclude any other men from that purportedly single sex facility.

> The service provider would be vulnerable to indirect discrimination claims of the types described in §3 above or harassment claims of the type discussed at §§6-7 above from service users who wish to have access to single sex facilities. These will be harder to defend if there are no suitable single sex facilities available anywhere else in the service.

People with Gender Recognition Certificates

34. Under the GRA a person who has a GRC becomes the opposite sex “for all [legal] purposes” (GRA s.9(1) read with Forstater v CGD Europe [2022] ICR 1) except in the situations where that principle does not apply. The Supreme Court is currently deciding in For Woman Scotland whether the principle applies to the EqA.

35. If the Supreme Court decides that a GRC does not change a person’s sex for the purposes of the EqA, then trans people with GRCs will be in the same position as those without GRCs. That is, as service users they should be treated according to their biological sex when using single sex facilities (see §33 above).

36. If the Supreme Court decides that a GRC does change a person’s sex for the purposes of the EqA, then in principle a service provider is entitled to allow males with GRCs to use facilities provided for women (and vice versa). However:

> The EqA contains a further set of exceptions which allow service providers to exclude trans people with GRCs from single sex facilities where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to do so. In this way, service providers may provide facilities on a single biological sex basis.

> A service provider which does not invoke these exceptions might face complaints of indirect discrimination such as those in §3 above or harassment of the type described in §§6-7 above from service users who wish to have access to single sex facilities on a biological sex basis.

> A service provider which does invoke these exceptions might face a complaint of indirect gender reassignment discrimination of the type described at §4 above. Claims of this sort will be easier for the trans service user to win than they would be if the Supreme Court had decided that a GRC does not change a person’s sex for the purposes of the EqA.

WHAT EMPLOYERS & SERVICE PROVIDERS SHOULD DO

37. The current state of the law on single sex facilities is clearly unsatisfactory. Quite apart from anything else, it seems that employers and service providers should distinguish between trans people who have GRCs and those who do not. In services in particular this will almost always be impossible to do. Furthermore in both workplaces and services, it makes no difference to other users of the facilities whether a trans person has a GRC or not; they remain a person of the opposite sex.

38. The upshot of this mess is that the safest (although not risk-free) option for service providers and employers is to offer some “unisex” or “gender neutral” facilities for the use of people who do not wish to use facilities according to their sex, and to provide sufficient single sex facilities on a biological sex basis for everybody else, if it is possible to do so (note this should not be done be repurposing accessible facilities). Neither the 1992 Regs nor the EqA prohibits the provision of unisex facilities in addition to single sex facilities.

39. This solution will not be available to all employers or service providers because of the burden of cost and/or a lack of physical space. Where it is not possible, employers and service providers are caught between the prospect of discrimination claims brought by people who want single sex facilities and those brought by trans people who want to use facilities in their acquired gender. It can only be hoped that the Supreme Court will clarify the position, and that if it does not, that the Government will step in and amend the relevant legislation so that employees and service users can understand their rights and employers and service providers can understand their obligations.

25 February 2025

This article does not constitute legal advice or give rise to a lawyer/client relationship. Specialist legal advice should be taken in relation to specific circumstances. The contents of this article are for general information purposes only. No warranty, express or implied, is given as to its accuracy and we do not accept any liability for error or omission. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Discrimination law and the experimental method

I want to apply yesterday’s dazzling insight that peanuts have to be left out of peanut-free meals to the words of the Equality Act and the specific question before the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, to be heard later this month. This is another fairly short point, though a little more technical than yesterday’s.

Broadly, the job of the EqA is to prohibit discrimination because of the various protected characteristics. But there are exceptions, so that it remains lawful for director of a play to insist that Juliet is played by a girl and Romeo by a boy, or for a charity to define its beneficiaries by reference to race, national origin or sexual orientation.

Paragraphs 26 and 27 of schedule 3 make it lawful to provide separate-sex services, and single-sex services, in situations engaging considerations like bodily privacy and dignity. They are expressed in general terms: what’s permitted is providing “single-sex” services or “separate services for persons of each sex”. Obviously that means excluding persons of the other sex. And the exclusion can only be a blanket rule, or the service can’t truthfully be described as separate or single-sex, just as you can’t describe a meal as “peanut free” if you sometimes put peanuts in it.

That much is straightforward, or ought to be. (There is in fact plenty of dissent to it out there, some of it undeniably heavyweight. Nevertheless, I think the law is clear.)

The question for the Supreme Court in FWS is whether the protected characteristic of sex in the EqA — whether someone is regarded as a man or a woman — is affected by section 9(1) of the GRA, so that a man with a gender recognition certificate declaring him to be a woman counts as a woman for the purposes of discrimination law. In other words, whether “sex” in the EqA just means sex; or whether it means sex except for people with GRCs, in which case it means the sex they are deemed to be because of their GRI. We can call these two possibilities “sex” and “certificated sex” for short.

The answer to this question determines what kind of discrimination a man with a GRC declaring him to be a woman is subjected to if he is excluded from a women-only service.

The law has developed a thought experiment, complete with imaginary “experimental control”, as the way of finding out whether someone has suffered discrimination for a particular reason. You don’t have to be a scientist to use experimental controls: we all do it pretty intuitively.

Suppose your desk lamp isn’t working. Is it the bulb? Is the socket it’s plugged into live? Is it the fuse in the plug? Is the switch in the “on” position? You find out which is the culprit by trying different things one by one. You change the bulb, keeping everything else the same. Does it light? If so, the problem was the bulb. If not, you put the old bulb back, and try the switch in the other position. Still no light? Switch the switch back, and plug the lamp into a socket you know is live.

Similarly, if Chris is refused entry to the women’s changing room on account of his obviously male appearance, is that because of his sex? The common sense answer is “yes”. But a GRC transcends (or confounds) common sense: if it operates in the context of the EqA, what matters is Chris’s certificated sex, not his actualy sex, so it tells us that Chris is a woman. To find out whether Chris has been excluded because of his sex, we have to compare him with someone who is of the opposite sex, and ask whether that person would have been excluded, too.

So, obedient to the pretence required of us by Chris’s GRC, we set to work constructing a comparator. We say “Chris is a woman, so a person of the opposite sex is a man, let’s call him Christopher. This is a women-only space, so Christopher would have been excluded just like Chris. So Chris wasn’t excluded because of his (deemed female) sex, because a person of the opposite sex would also have been excluded.” (In truth, the chances are no-one will ever do anything to Chris because of his “female” sex, because it’s almost certainly obvious that he’s a bloke.)

If we run the same thought experiment on the different PC of gender reassignment, we get a different answer. The law tells us that Chris is a woman (even while our senses tell us different). Chris is a woman with the PC of gender reassignment: although legally a woman, he is a woman not by physiology, but by legal deeming. Obviously a woman without the PC of gender reassignment — that is, an actual female woman — would not have been excluded. So we have our answer: the reason Chris has been excluded is because of his PC of gender reassignment, not his sex.

That means that excluding Chris can’t be justified under ¶26 or 27 of schedule 3, because those operate to permit sex discrimiation. But it may still be lawful to exclude Chris, because ¶28 of schedule 3 provides that it’s not unlawful to discriminate on grounds of gender reassignment in relation to the provision of single or separate-sex services, provided “the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

Remember, all this reasoning is proceeding on the assumption that that a GRC changes Chris’s sex for the purposes of the EqA. The weird thing about ¶28, on this assumption, is that it seems to say you have to work out whether the thing you did — excluding Chris — was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. But it’s always going to be — because, well, peanuts. If the space or service is single-sex, you can’t let a man in (even a man with a certificate), or in every sense that matters it’s no longer a single-sex space. A legal fiction can deem a man married to another man to be in a heterosexual marriage, or deem him to be female for pension purposes, etc, but it doesn’t actually change the reality or the real consequences of a male body (or even the real consequences of the theoretical possibility of a male body). It won’t affect the trauma reaction of the already-traumatised female user of that space, or the justifiable outrage and affront of the non-traumatised woman who looks up when taking her knickers off to meet the eye of a man in a space she was told was for women only. The fact that the man in question has a secret certificate at home in a drawer won’t — even if somehow she knows about it — make her feel any less embarrassed, angry or alarmed.

So ¶28 seems to call for “case by case” decision-making in a situation in which only a blanket rule will do. I explored the practical impossibility of that here: https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2022/02/16/admission-to-women-only-spaces-and-case-by-case-assessment/.

There are a lot of reasons why the Supreme Court should find for FWS, and this is only a relatively small one. But I think it’s pleasingly neat.

The reason I say that is that the “certificated sex” assumption leads you into this weird, artificial, counter-factual reasoning about when you can and can’t exclude Chris — and you end up apparently having to make a case-by-case assessment of something that can only be satisfactorily dealt with by way of a general rule, precisely because the “single-sexness” of the space is about what you tell the female users of the space, and whether they can trust you. It’s not really about Chris and his individual characteristics at all.

But as soon as you remove the GRA spanner from the works of the EqA, this bit of the machine starts running smoothly and rationally.

On that assumption — that s.9(1) of the GRA doesn’t affect the EqA — this bit of the law can recognise Chris as the man he looks like, and is. He’s excluded because of his sex, which for these purposes remains male. And that’s lawful under ¶26 or 27 if it’s lawful to run a single-sex space at all.

So what’s ¶28 for, on this hypothesis? Good question! I’m glad you asked it, because the answer is elegant and satisfying. The point of ¶28 is to make it lawful, where appropriate, to exclude not men, but some women from the space, because of their PC of gender reassignment.

Mostly, women who say they are men (“trans men”) will be perfectly welcome in women-only spaces. That’s because they are women, with female bodies. Their presence won’t affront, humiliate or alarm anyone, and they are likely to have the same needs as any other woman.

But some “trans men” have taken extreme steps to look like men. Women who do this can often do it quite successfully, for precisely the same reason that men who say they are women almost always remain very visibly male. The reason is testosterone. Testosterone is a powerful drug, and a one-way ticket. A man who has gone through male puberty will almost never be able to disguise its effects successfully in later life. But when a woman takes testosterone, she’s likely to acquire a much more male-looking physique, a broken male-sounding voice, facial hair and male-pattern baldness. So some women with the PC of gender reassignment really do look and sound pretty much like men, and there will be circumstances in which it is genuinely necessary to exclude them from women-only spaces for the sake of the other women in them.

Obviously, this is a fact-sensitive judgement which will depend on the particular nature of the space or service, who else is likely to be using it, how it is organised, and how convincingly masculine is the appearance of the trans-identifying woman in question. In other words, it calls for precisely the kind of “case by case” decision-making that ¶28 seems to envisage. The difference is that on this hypothesis — that “sex” in the EqA simply means “sex” —“case by case” makes perfect sense.

Women’s Consent Matters

The Liberal Democrats’ manifesto (published today) promises to abolish the spousal veto in the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“GRA”) (see Section 19). The spousal veto is a phrase which has been widely used by politicians wishing to expand LGBT rights. But does such a veto actually exist? Let’s look at what the GRA actually says and not what politicians think it says. We will focus on marriages and the position of women married to men seeking a Gender Recognition Certificate (“GRC”).

The relevant provisions are these:-

An application for a GRC is made under S.1(1). Anyone doing so must under S.1(6) make a statutory declaration as to whether or not they are married.
If they are married they also need to state whether it’s a marriage under the laws of England and Wales, Scotland, NI or a country outside the UK – S.1(6)(A).
Under S.1(6B), the married applicant must also include a statutory declaration by their spouse that they consent to the marriage continuing after the issue of a full GRC (a statutory declaration of consent) or a declaration that they have not made such a declaration. In short, the panel determining the application needs to be told the spouse’s view on the continuation of the marriage given that its fundamental basis will change on the grant of a GRC. A woman who married a man will find herself, after a GRC is issued, married to a legal woman i.e. in a same sex marriage.
If the spouse has given their consent, they will be given notice by the Panel that an application for a GRC has been made – S.1(6D).
There are equivalent provisions for marriages in other parts of the UK, forced marriages and for civil partnerships.

What happens if a spouse does not consent

This is covered in Section 4 – Successful Applications. (Note the heading.)
Under S.4(3) the applicant gets an interim gender recognition certificate.
An interim GRC will be turned into a full GRC if, within 6 months, the wife consents to the marriage continuing after the issue of a full GRC – S.4A(2)(d) i.e. the woman changes her mind.

So there is no veto. What there is instead is a pause to allow the wife to decide what to do about her marriage. During that pause the applicant has an interim GRC.

What is the point of that six month pause?

Well, this should be obvious but let’s spell it out. It is to allow the wife to decide what to do about a marriage which has fundamentally changed. Instead of being married to a man, she will find herself married to a man who says he is a woman and seeks to change his birth certificate to say so. It is not simply that she will be married to a woman in the future. She is being told that she has always been married to a woman.

– She can either decide to consent.

– Or she can apply for an annulment of the marriage on the grounds that an interim GRC has been issued. Once that nullity of marriage order has been made, the court must issue a full GRC – S.5(1)(a). In short, the interim GRC starts the process of annulling the marriage to allow the final GRC to be issued.

– Or she can apply for an annulment of the marriage on other grounds and once that happens a full GRC is granted – S.5(2) – (7).

Alternatively, a spouse can seek a divorce after the interim GRC has been granted.

Why does the pause matter?

Two main reasons:

A divorce is not the same in law as an annulment and it can have consequences in other areas which can lead to prejudicial effects for the woman. One obvious area is for religious women. A divorce may prevent them from partaking fully in religious life and practices. An annulment through the religious courts can take a long time. Why should a woman be denied the benefits of something which matters to her when there is an alternative – annulment, provided for by the Act, triggered by the steps taken by her husband and which, crucially, does not deny him the GRC he is seeking? Denial of this to religious women may also potentially constitute discrimination on the grounds of religion.

Even if a woman is not religious, she is entitled to some time and space to determine her future, whether she wants to stay in the marriage, what her husband’s decision to seek a GRC means for her, any children, the wider family, her life up until now and what she does next. This is the very minimum that a decent society should afford a woman facing such a significant change. Should this really need saying in 2024?

The GRA has provided an elegant solution which grants both an interim GRC, a means for the man to get his full GRC and autonomy to the woman to decide whether or not to continue in her marriage.

It has been described as “awful” by one politician (Jess Phillips MP in 2020). This is a curiously hyperbolic description for a solution which seeks to balance the rights of both parties to a marriage.

What is the mischief which this change is seeking to address? No explanation is given – other than the lie that it is a “veto”. (See also Is this really necessary, Minister? – (legalfeminist.org.uk))

It recognises that women married to men wishing to change gender legally should consent to a fundamental change in their marriage. Women’s consent matters. We should not have to say this or argue for this in 2024. A woman should not be forced to stay in a marriage against her will. She should not be forced into a same sex marriage against her will. She should not be forced to seek a divorce against her will as opposed to an annulment.

It is troubling that in 2024 politicians should pay so little regard to the importance of women’s consent. What does it say about their attitude to women’s consent to matters affecting them? That “No does not mean No”? That a woman’s consent does not matter? That is an optional extra? That it comes second to the demands of men? And if women’s consent does not matter in a marriage, on what basis do such politicians argue that it should matter in other situations? Or should we worry that having chipped away at consent in this situation, it might be chipped away in others if men want something which that consent might deny them?

The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act was passed in 2007 to prevent girls and young women being forced into marriage. The GRA provides a means whereby a woman is not forced to stay in a marriage. Rape in marriage was made unlawful in 1992 by the then House of Lords in R v R. The court rejected the idea of irrevocable consent through marriage, saying that it was unacceptable in modern times. It stated that each partner in a marriage should be seen as equal. Those principles – that there is no irrevocable consent and that partners in a marriage are equal – should not now be jettisoned merely to suit the wishes of one male partner wishing to make a fundamental change to his legal identity and the marriage he contracted.

To call the provisions described above a spousal veto is a bad faith description.

It is misleading about what the law actually says.

It seeks to apportion blame unjustifiably on the woman.

It disguises the removal of her autonomy in a matter which fundamentally affects her life.

What politicians like to call a spousal veto is in reality a spousal exit clause. It carefully balances the rights of equal partners in a marriage. There is no basis for wilfully misdescribing it nor removing it.