Rishi Sunak to consider law change to protect ‘biological’ women

Watchdog says move could offer ‘clarity’ on women-only spaces but create risks on equal pay and sex discrimination

Rishi Sunak is to consider official advice that says changing the definition of sex in law would create greater “clarity” around women-only spaces.

Amending the Equality Act 2010 to specifically refer to “biological sex” merits further consideration, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) concluded after the government asked it to consider the pros and cons of such a change.

But a change in the definition could be “more ambiguous or potentially disadvantageous” when it came to equal pay and direct and indirect sex discrimination, it warned.

The move risks reigniting the row over transgender rights and comes just days after Sir Keir Starmer tried to clarify his stance on the issue.

Sources close to Rishi Sunak said he “remains committed to his campaign pledge” to reinforce rights around biological sex and would support equalities minister Kemi Badenoch, who called for the review, in “taking that work forward”.

In its review, the EHRC found “no straightforward balance” but said it had come to the view that defining sex as biological sex “would bring greater legal clarity in eight areas”.

These include hospital wards where the EHRC said that a “biological definition of sex would make it simpler to make a women’s-only ward a space for biological women”.

When it came to sport, it would mean that organisers could exclude trans women without having to show the move was necessary because of fairness or safety.

But a change in the definition could be “more ambiguous or potentially disadvantageous” when it came to equal pay and direct and indirect sex discrimination, it warned.

It stated: “On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers.

“It, therefore, merits further consideration.”

Earlier this week, Sir Keir said that for the vast majority of people “let’s say 99.9 per cent, biology matters” in defining a woman.

But he added that voters were more interested in the cost of living crisis and that Labour was trying to agree a “commonsense, respectable and tolerant position”.

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the EHRC’s chair, said there should be “due regard to any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women”.

She said: “Our response to the minister’s request for advice suggests that the UK government carefully identify and consider the potential implications of this change.

“Should they wish to pursue work in this area, we recommend detailed policy and legal analysis be undertaken, in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and with due regard to any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.

“There is a clear need to move the public debate on issues of sex and gender to a more informed and constructive basis. This would be welcomed by the many who do not take the polarised positions currently driving public debate.”