The Supreme Court ruling that women are defined by biological sex, not gender identity, should prompt a ¡°bonfire of university policies¡± affecting everything from student accommodation and campus toilets to equality monitoring practices, gender-critical scholars have argued.

With the coming just before the Easter break, universities are still digesting the ruling¡¯s implications for their gender policies, which, with the encouragement of the sector¡¯s main diversity body Advance HE, have mandated that individuals should be acknowledged according to their gender identity, rather than biological sex.

For example, Advance HE¡¯s guidance on trans students and staff, states ¡°trans people should be allowed to use single-sex toilets and changing facilities appropriate to their self-identified gender¡± and it is ¡°not acceptable to restrict a trans person to using disabled toilets or gender-neutral facilities¡±.

Failure to allow access to single-space facilities in this way constitutes ¡°discrimination and harassment¡± of an ¡°unlawful¡± kind, it adds.

51³Ô¹Ï

Refusing to address a person using their ¡°correct pronoun¡± ¨C which might include ¡°che/chim/chis/chimself¡±, ¡°E/Em/Eir/Eirs/Emself¡± and ¡°Xe/hir/hirs/hirself¡± ¨C is another example of unlawful discrimination listed in the guidance, whose foreword was co-authored by Michael Arthur, then-president and provost of UCL.

John Armstrong, reader in financial mathematics at King¡¯s College London, said the Supreme Court¡¯s ruling confirmed his long-held view that guidance from Advance HE was not just incorrect but in contravention of the Equality Act which allows for women-only spaces in circumstances related to .

51³Ô¹Ï

Advance HE said it would not withdraw its guidance at present but was adding a caveat over its continued use in light of forthcoming changes to statutory guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

In a statement, the body said it ¡°recognised the significance of the Supreme Court¡¯s judgment which holds that the terms ¡®man¡¯, ¡®woman¡¯ and ¡®sex¡¯ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex¡±.

¡°The judgment brings clarity to the definitions while reiterating the protections for trans students and staff, with or without a GRC [gender recognition certificate],¡± it added.

Converting single-sex spaces, such as student accommodation and toilets, into unisex facilities ¨C a move already commonplace in many campuses ¨C would not be enough to comply with the Equality Act, given the requirement to provide single-sex provision in many cases, continued Armstrong.

¡°Providing more unisex spaces will be an option in some buildings, but there is still a requirement for some single-sex provision¡± said Armstrong.

51³Ô¹Ï

On whether universities will need to amend their disciplinary policies on misgendering of transgender staff and students, he added that ¡°the concept of misgendering has been stretched to suggest that you cannot refer to biological sex at all, which would make it impossible even to discuss the Supreme Court judgment, let alone implement it¡±.

¡°We will need change the extreme policing of language and a bonfire of policies ¨C universities need to accept they have been unlawfully preventing people from asserting their legal rights,¡± he added.

Alice Sullivan, professor of sociology at UCL, who chaired a recent independent review on how gender ideology had prevented research related to sex, agreed that an overhaul was needed.

51³Ô¹Ï

¡°Gender self-identification is ubiquitous in university policies and practices, and institutional discrimination against staff and students, simply for believing that sex is a real and important characteristic, is rife,¡± said Sullivan, adding: ¡°Sex has always been a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, this judgment means that universities will finally be forced to recognise this.¡±

A?lawyer working in higher education, who did not wish to be named, said it was inevitable that, while the ruling ¡°applied to quite a narrow category of trans people¡­.with gender recognition certificates¡±, it would ¡°reignite discussions around single-sex spaces and services on campus and who should be entitled to access them¡±.

However, universities will also be mindful about the Equality Act¡¯s provisions to safeguard individuals with protected characteristics ¨C including gender reassignment ¨C from ¡°behaviour that in the circumstances has the purpose or the effect of violating a person¡¯s dignity or creating a hostile, degrading or offensive environment¡±.

Given the uncertainty over when gender identity is officially recognised as gender reassignment ¨C this can occur in transition before a gender recognition certificate is obtained ¨C institutions will struggle with competing ¡°relevant judgments and meeting the expectations of the Office for Students, of students, and of staff¡±, said the lawyer.

51³Ô¹Ï

¡°It is going to be extremely difficult to do and institutions are expending and will have to expend considerable time and resource in complying with them,¡± they said.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com