(LifeSiteNews) — The U.K. High Court issued an “incoherent” ruling on the question of whether gender-confused individuals have to use the bathroom associated with their biological sex.
On Friday, February 13, a High Court judge dismissed a legal challenge from a pro-LGBT group on the question of which bathrooms people who identify as transgender are allowed to use.
However, the ruling of Mr. Justice Swift left some things unclear and was rightly described as “incoherent” by pro-LGBT groups.
In a landmark ruling in April 2025, the Supreme Court decided that “transgender women” are not female in the eyes of the law and that the term woman legally only refers to those of biological female sex.
READ: UK Supreme Court rules ‘woman’ means biological female
In response, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued guidelines on the use of bathrooms and changing facilities for “transgender people.” It said that “trans women,” i.e., males, would be required to use a gender-neutral or male toilet but not female ones. These interim guidelines were withdrawn six months later, and the final version is still being considered by the government.
Pro-LGBT legal group The Good Law Project challenged the guidelines, claiming they were “legally flawed” and “overly simplistic.”
The High Court judge dismissed the argument that having to use a gender-neutral toilet could amount to “less favourable treatment.”
However, he also said that service providers are not “required” to let “transgender persons” only use those bathrooms corresponding with their biological sex.
Swift stated that those who provide bathroom or changing facilities should comply with the law but also be “guided by common sense and benevolence rather than allow themselves to be blinkered by unyielding ideologies,” leaving room for different interpretations.
According to the reading of the pro-LGBT Trans Solidarity Alliance, “The legal situation for trans people, employers, and service providers is now completely incoherent. What bathroom a trans person can use in a pub may now depend (on) whether they are there as an employer or for a drink.”
The U.K. group Sex Matters, which supports the recognition of biological reality, urged the government on Friday to issue the final guidance “without delay.”
“The law is clear,” Sex Matters chief executive May Forstater said. “There was never any excuse for the government, public bodies, regulators, charities or businesses to delay in implementing the Supreme Court judgement.”
EHRC chair Mary-Ann Stephenson welcomed the court’s finding that the guidance was lawful. However, the organization seemed torn between the two sides of the argument as they attempt to correspond with the Supreme Court’s ruling while also trying to champion the rights of the “trans community.”
“It’s our job to champion everyone’s rights under the Equality Act, including those with the protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment,” Stephenson said. “A shared and correct understanding of the law is essential to that endeavor.”