Equalities committee sees clashes over single-sex services

Two hours into the evidence session, Holly Bruce asked the expert witnesses if they understood what they were talking about.

The Equalities, Human Rights and Social Justice Committee had begun its inquiry into the implementation of its code on the provision of single-sex services.

On the panel were Maya Forstater of Sex Matters, Mary Howden of the Women’s Rights Network Scotland, and Susan Smith of For Women Scotland (FWS), whose organisation’s court challenge established that ‘sex’ in UK equalities laws means biology, not preferred gender.

“Do the panellists understand that the code isn't an absolute right and it is a qualified right”, allowing for challenge under “legitimate and proportionate circumstances”, Bruce asked.

“We took the court case,” Smith responded, “so I'm fully cognisant with what the law is”.

It was one of several moments in which the Scottish Greens MSP appeared to clash with the witnesses, all of whom are prominent campaigners for single-sex services.

That is the law. That is what we have

“I had a constituent – a masculine-presenting cisgendered lesbian – that is now too scared to use women's toilets alone because she’s constantly challenged,” said the Glasgow Southside MSP. “People with alopecia and those undergoing cancer treatment are also being challenged. Does your approach within your organisation require policing of who looks female enough to enter spaces? And how do you justify a system that actively drives gender non-conforming disabled people and lesbian women out of public life?”

The anger from Smith was palpable. “False,” she said. “And as a cancer survivor who was bald, I do take exception to you saying that you cannot recognise sex if a woman is bald. I think that is deeply problematic.”

Convener Katie Hagmann intervened, asking participants to “keep the tone as helpful and as stable as possible”. But the SNP member had a busy session, having to intervene to keep discussion focused on the implementation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) code of practice, and not on other issues of gender-based violence, definitions or anything else.

“We want to get as much out of this session as possible,” she said. But at times the discussion was reminiscent of the debate around the gender recognition reforms that were blocked by Westminster for infringing upon the Equality Act and overstepping the Scottish Parliament’s powers.

The revised EHRC code of practice came into force in August and is aimed at helping organisations to apply the Equality Act in light of the FWS v Scottish Ministers case which brought new clarity around the terms of the law.

There is an “inertia” in putting the code into practice in the public sector, Howden said, highlighting WRNS research into assaults on women in leisure centre spaces – all of which had happened in unisex facilities.

In the first of the two panels, representatives of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), Police Scotland and the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS) gave testimony alongside the chief executive of sector body Community Leisure UK, which had been suggested by councils body Cosla in lieu of one of its own staff.

there is a narrative, a political narrative, which is particularly unhelpful

There are now “zero biological males” within women’s prisons, SPS deputy chief executive Adam Jobson confirmed, thanks to a “small number” of transfers carried out in June 2026. “Trans women, biological men, would be accommodated in the male accommodation,” Jobson said. “That is the law. That is what we have,” he went on, adding that all are being treated with dignity and respect.

The SPS had carried out contingency planning in the run-up to the court case which clarified the law, he explained, preparing individualised assessments for each prisoner.

The committee heard that limitations in the built estate can present difficulties for organisations required to provide sex-segregated facilities like toilets and changing rooms.

SAS chief executive Michael Dickson, also representing NHS boards, said the health sector is engaged in safeguarding and works to balance risks. On same-sex accommodation in A&E departments, he said research showed that “the iller you are, the less concerned you are about single-sex arrangements”. “Obviously, as you start to recover, that becomes a greater priority,” Dickson went on. “But if your life is on the line, we do all that we can to make sure we are maintaining your dignity through our process. It’s not about opening curtains but it’s providing you appropriate care in the best situation, which is obviously life critical.”

Dickson moved to assure MSPs that health boards are “implementing the code in the way that respects the rights and dignity of all of the people that use our services”.

But he had another point for the committee. “I think there is – and I apologise if this is outside the scope – but there is a narrative, a political narrative, which is particularly unhelpful and that has enabled people to take particular views, and that washes through, and we see this in terms of all aspects of the society we rest in. That washes through into our staff and our colleagues in the same way, and that need to reflect that this is a legal ruling.

We would really rather not take anybody else to court

“The implementation of the code is an implementation of the code, but there are people affected by affected by values and representations of arguments, and often from leaders, political leaders, that can make this whole situation far more difficult than just dealing with a legal ruling or just dealing with the guidance.

“We can do all that we can do, but there is that wider public narrative that I think is being shaped.”

Dickson was responding to a question from Bruce about women who are “masculine presenting” or have cancer-related hair loss who experience harassment in the NHS and at leisure centres, and so are scared to use them. “These people are fearful and are not coming forward. What can the police say to those victims to come forward when those scenarios happen,” she asked.

And, responding to his answer, she said that the rationale behind her question – giving voice to experience – “should be recognised and affirmed”.

In the second panel, Smith said her organisation would “really rather not take anybody else to court”, but spoke of a lack of “pick up” within the health service, including on psychiatric wards and in home visits. In one case, a practitioner had two registrations as male and female, she said.

And she railed against the suggestion that advocacy for single-sex services is about enforcing “gender conformity”.

“I deeply resent that,” she told the panel, adding that the group Scottish Lesbians had intervened in the FWS v Scottish Ministers case. “These are very long-standing campaigners and they were very determined to protect their spaces,” she said.

“What I find problematic is the idea that gender non-conforming men should be pushed out of male spaces and into women’s spaces because apparently they are vulnerable in a male space, and I find that concerning because I think that that just means that a woman’s space becomes a repository for men who are at risk.

“A woman’s space should be for all women, irrespective of whether they’ve had cancer treatment, irrespective of whether they are a butch lesbian, irrespective of whether they have flicky long hair and heels. It’s for women, and that’s because women have, unfortunately, suffered for a very long time at the hands of men, and this is what the code is about protecting. And I find attempts to undermine the code deeply, deeply distressing on that basis.”

It was just the first evidence session on the matter. Next week the committee will hear from Scottish Trans, the Equality Network, and LGBT Youth Scotland, as well the EHRC itself, with equalities minister Simita Kumar set to appear later in the month.