UN Expert Criticizes UK on Sex and Gender

By | 2026

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 13 (C-Fam) Last year, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that the word “sex” refers to biological sex in the country’s nondiscrimination law.  However, a UN human rights expert says this ruling is not being effectively implemented.

The ruling, which stated that “women” should be understood exclusively in terms of biological sex, affirmed that single-sex spaces such as restrooms, sports teams, and domestic violence shelters can exclude biological males, including those who claim to identify as women.

Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, has written critically about transgenderism in her reports and welcomed the UK ruling when it was announced last April.  This week, she expressed her concerns that the UK government has not issued updated guidance to its various departments and public sector service providers, which continue to operate under outdated standards.

“Without implementation, a court judgment offers little protection in practice,” she said, noting that women and girls would be adversely affected by this “widespread non-compliance.”

“Women and girls are left exposed to continued rights violations and are often compelled to rely on litigation to enforce protections that should already be guaranteed by law — an option that is prohibitively costly and inaccessible for many,” said Alsalem.

Alsalem’s position in support of the court’s ruling is not shared by all the UN’s human rights special mandate holders. A group of other human rights experts issued a joint statement expressing concerns that the court’s ruling could undermine the rights of people who identify as transgender, and criticizing the proposed guidelines for its implementation, which were written by the UK’s national human rights institution, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

These guidelines were blocked by the Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson, in December.  She argued that the proposed rules were “trans-exclusive,” and, according to the Telegraph, has been using other bureaucratic excuses to create delays.

The government has accepted the court’s decision as law, despite its subsequent slow-walking.  The ERHC’s guidelines would have to be introduced in Parliament for 40 days before coming into effect.  According to the Guardian, the guidelines are currently undergoing an adaptation under the leadership of the commission’s new chair, with the goal to “balance single-sex spaces with the lives of transgender people.”

The previous ERHC chair, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, came under heavy criticism by transgender activists during her tenure. As soon as she was appointed, the new ERHC chair, Mary-Ann Stephenson, also came under attack herself, including for having “ties to ‘gender-critical’ groups.”  The organization Sex Matters noted that the activists were calling on “EHRC to return to going beyond the law in advocating for the desires of transgender individuals” and urged the commission not to cave to their pressure and to uphold the law.

Meanwhile, “gender-critical” activists in the UK are impatiently waiting to see the law implemented. Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters, echoed the concerns raised by Alsalem. “The Government’s dithering on the code of practice and its own HR policies is inexcusable,” she said. “The anniversary of the Supreme Court’s judgment will come around with the Government still dragging its feet.”

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter