Leak, Headline, “Spokesperson Says”

In August 2025, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and sympathetic newspapers and publishers, ran what seemed like an increasingly tight sequence of stories, to pressure organisations to rewrite policy – even before the underlying law has been properly changed or implemented.

Each of the headlines followed a pattern and in what is commonly known as “silly season” in the press as parliament are in summer recess, the seeding of stories began to feel more insidious, especially as the trans community nervously awaited the forthcoming guidance from the EHRC.

The echo chamber pushed out story after story, designed to force businesses, organisations and people into compliance, even before facts could be garnered and the guidance could even make its way through parliament.

It is important to note from the outset, that despite the April Supreme Court ruling in the UK, the law has not changed. The Equality Act still protects trans people under gender reassignment and those providing single-sex spaces must justify any exclusion of trans people on a case-by-case basis. There must be a proportional and justified aim to that exclusion.

However that has not stopped anti-trans groups and their supporters, from using social media. legacy media and even threats of court action, to imply that the interim and full guidance, which has now been submitted to Bridget Phillipson, Minister for Women and Equalities, from the EHRC is law. They know this, they know that for something to become law, it has be done through an act of parliament, through the courts.

This makes the media choreography that occurred during August feel insidious and deliberate. By releasing a series of articles replete with buzzwords such as “it is understood… reports say… a spokesperson said…”, the public was being primed before any final code of practice made its way to parliament.

This strategy has worked as organisations have being nudged into blanket exclusions of trans people despite the legal test remaining the same.

In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled in the FWS vs Scottish Ministers case, that ‘clarified’ wording around ‘sex/woman” in the Equality Act. It did not, as certain anti-trans groups and supportive media and acolytes have been implying since, erase protections for trans people and neither does it give the right for blanket exclusions. The proportionality test still exists.

As Stonewall rightly pointed out:

“It’s important to be reminded the Court strongly and clearly re-affirmed the Equality Act protects all trans people against discrimination, based on Gender Reassignment, and will continue to do so.”

Following the Supreme Court decision the EHRC issued interim guidance which set out to ‘clarify’ how business, organisations etc should deal with the decision. And further in late August, in a classic case of ‘scale vs framing’ announced “regulatory action” targeting a small subset of organisations whose policies allegedly misrepresent the law. In 2024, the EHRC had spoken about 404 examples, but the final number were only 19 organisations. The resulting media coverage however, still implied this was a broad crackdown. This was not a new statute, but enforcement posture.

That leaves us again with the indisputable fact that providers still must work to the rule that inclusion remains lawful and exclusion must be justified, needing specific evidence-based reasons to exclude.

Here we illustrate the pattern in which the media cycle of stories played out.

1. Early August: Pre briefs and predictions: Headlines assert an impending ban on trans women in female‑only spaces “under new guidance”. Pieces lean on anonymous sourcing (e.g., “it is understood”, “reports say”), while an EHRC line notes the code is “not finalised”. The tension between confident front‑page predictions and anodyne official quotes seeds uncertainty.
   • 6 Aug: Telegraph: NHS ‘won’t ban’ story sets expectation of imminent policy shifts.
   • 8 Aug: Telegraph/Independent: ‘Bans under new guidance’ framed as settled; spokesperson adds ‘code not finalised’.
2. Mid August: Issue priming and amplification: Follow‑on stories use specific institutions (HMRC, universities, the NHS) as cautionary tales; social posts and broadcasts recycle the headlines. The narrative implies non‑compliance is rampant and punitive action is looming.
   • 15 to 23 Aug: Case studies: Virgin Active, HMRC used as proof of ‘non‑compliance’ crisis.
3. Late August: Apparent confirmation: EHRC announces action against a limited number of bodies (fewer than 5% of the policies initially waved around). Coverage frames this as a crackdown validating the earlier leaks, despite the small scale and the ongoing requirement for case‑by‑case analysis.
   • 25 to 27 Aug: – University toilet/changing room stories amplify narrative of widespread rule‑breaking.
   • 27 to 28 Aug: – EHRC announces action vs ~19 orgs; framed as crackdown incl. ‘unlimited fines’ (court‑mediated in reality).

The problem was, each of the stories began to create a real net effect where a sense of inevitability of the forthcoming code of practice was felt within not just the trans community but the UK as a whole, especially as businesses and service providers awaited the full EHRC guidance. This normalised the idea that exclusion was the default, even without the necessary and legal legislative change.

Below is a timeline of some of the different headlines from the national media as they pushed more and more stories to stir up the ‘debate’. (Click the drop down arrow to reveal.)

1. Pre brief the outcome: Anonymous or unattributed lines (“it is understood…”) establish a hard conclusion before guidance exists. This invites outlets and commentators to treat speculation as settled policy.
2. Insert a bland officialism: A single sentence from “an EHRC spokesperson” that the code is “not finalised” is used to appear balanced, without unwinding the headline’s premise.
3. Inflate the stakes: Stories highlight potential fines and regulatory jeopardy. The nuance, that EHRC can seek court orders and that penalties ultimately flow through courts, is rarely explained.
4. Spotlight outlier anecdotes: Anecdotes about toilets, changing rooms, or ponds are framed as proof of systemic crisis. The legal test (proportionality/legitimate aim) quietly disappears in the retelling.
5. Rebrand guidance as law: “Interim updates” or future “codes” are described as if they impose immediate duties. This encourages institutions to over correct pre-emptively.

With mounting pressure, real threats of legal action as anti-trans groups and individuals pledged to take any provider to court who didn’t “obey” and a constant drumbeat of the ‘EHRC interim guidance is law and the Supreme Court ruled exclusion is now the norm‘, organisations – especially those without the legal power or money to fight, were understandably worried. It didn’t help as larger organisations, with teams of lawyers and plenty of money themselves, began to cave, including in some cases citing “legally binding“ rulings (see The Trans Round-Up: August 2025 edition) when this is factually incorrect.

So what can organisations do? Here’s some handy guidance but the first thing to remember is keep calm and keep it legal.

• Stay with the law: Your baseline is always the Equality Act. Keep policies aligned to statute and case law; avoid reacting to headlines.
• Document proportionality: If you restrict access in a narrow context (e.g. a refuge), state the legitimate aim and why less restrictive alternatives won’t work. An example of this happening can be seen in The Trans Round-Up: July 2025 edition.
• Avoid blanket bans: These are incredible hard to justify and more open to challenge in the courts.
• Train staff on the actual test: Focus on case‑by‑case handling and respectful inclusion. Clarify that trans service users remain protected.
• Message internally: Explain that press headlines do not equal policy; share a one‑page explainer for managers.

For the reader, for the trans community and our supporters, seeing what felt like an onslaught of headlines during August, as stories were amplified and pushed by seemingly legitimate sources, felt like the the battle was over. Of course, truthfully, this is what it is designed to do. It’s part of the playbook of the ‘moral panic’.

Moral panic is where a feeling of fear is shared, usually generated because an inflated media coverage. Sociologist and moral panic theorist Stanley Cohen, covered and coined the term ‘moral panic’ in 1973 in his book Devils and Moral Panics. This premise was expanded on in 1994 by Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda. Their model highlighted 5 characteristics of moral panic:

They described five characteristics of moral panics, including: (1) concern, where there is a heightened level of concern about certain groups or categories, (2) hostility, where one can observe an increase in hostility towards the ‘deviants’ of ‘respectful society’, (3) consensus, where a consensus about the reality and seriousness of a threat can be found, (4) disproportionality, where public concern is in excess of what ‘should’ be, and (5) volatility, where the panic is temporary and fleeting and though it might reoccur, the panic is not long lasting.

Messick KJ, Aranda BE. The role of moral reasoning & personality in explaining lyrical preferences. PLoS One. 2020 Jan 24;15(1):e0228057. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228057. PMID: 31978181; PMCID: PMC6980482. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6980482/

The problem is, with a 24 hour news cycle, clickbait, social media creating battle lines and politicians fighting fire instead of enacting policy, the so-called moral panics are constantly regenerated and the August 2025 media cycle bore this out. The traditional ‘moral panic’ is no longer just going away.

So how do we combat this as readers of the news and purveyors of social media etc? We learn to spot how the scare is created.

• Phrases like: “it is understood”, “reports say”, “leaked documents suggest” with no verifiable detail.
• Future tense certainty: about guidance that’s “not finalised”.
• Conflation: of guidance/press lines with binding law.
• Selective exemplars: (HMRC, one university, a specific pond) presented as systemic evidence.
• Overstated sanctions: fines portrayed as immediate EHRC penalties rather than court‑based outcomes.

Given the way the media and certain groups have been able to pump out, what feels like an almost constant daily durge of news regarding the EHRC and trans issues – including the real, conflated and just outright made-up – the discourse has been muddied. This includes the understanding of what is lawful, what is justified and who can implement law.

One solicitor firm, Thomson Solicitors, who works closely with trade unions wrote in August, in regards to delays at the time from the EHRC, that:

“The revised guidance will have enormous implications for trans people. There are already widespread reports of trans people facing exclusion from sporting organisations and being restricted as to which bathroom they can use at work on the basis of their “biological sex”, with organisers referring to the Supreme Court judgment and EHRC interim guidance in support of such decisions. The revised guidance will also have implications for service providers, public bodies and employers making decisions on the basis of sex or gender identity. Trade union reps should take steps to ensure trans members are supported and be alive to the fact that neither the Supreme Court ruling nor any EHRC guidance renders discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment or perceived gender lawful. It remains unlawful for employers to discriminate against trans employees on the basis of their gender identity, and it is still possible to bring successful discrimination claims relating to any such discrimination.”

It’s clear that the so called ‘clarity’ that was promised from the Supreme Court ruling, was anything but, so let’s remind everyone of the law by looking at how it actually works vs how the narrative works:

Bottom Line

• Law: Trans inclusion is the default. Exclusion is possible but only if strictly justified.
• Narrative: Exclusion is assumed, inclusion is optional.

When institutions mistake headlines for law, real people lose access to safety, dignity and services.

The appearance of legal change becomes a tool to chill inclusion.

A curated list of coverage and official materials from August 2025, with brief notes for context

National Media Coverage (Aug 2025)

• Trans women to be banned from public female-only spaces: The Telegraph (8 Aug 2025)
  • Notes: Sets the month’s framing as if exclusion is settled policy; relies on ‘understood’ sourcing.
• Trans women to be banned from single-sex spaces under new EHRC guidance, reports say: The Independent (8 Aug 2025)
  • Notes: Echoes Telegraph claims while noting an EHRC spokesperson says the code is not finalised.
• HMRC lets trans staff in women’s toilets ‘in defiance of Supreme Court’: The Telegraph (23 Aug 2025)
  • Notes: Turns a single policy example into a headline ‘defiance’ narrative.
• Virgin Active bans trans women from female changing rooms: The Telegraph (15 Aug 2025)
  • Notes: Example-led amplification of exclusion after legal threats.
• Equalities watchdog tells organisations to change single-sex space rules: The Times (27 Aug 2025)
  • Notes: Frames EHRC action against 19 organisations as a wider crackdown; references ‘unlimited fines’.
• EHRC acts on policies flouting law on single-sex spaces: Personnel Today (28 Aug 2025)
  • Notes: HR trade press recap: 404 examples reviewed; 19 organisations pursued.

Local/Syndicated Amplification

• Female UCL students ‘forced to share toilets with men’ as universities flout trans rules: Yahoo News (syndicated) / Evening Standard byline (26 Aug 2025)
  • Notes: University-focused piece reinforcing non-compliance narrative.

Equality and Human Rights Official Materials

• EHRC completes review of evidence from government on single-sex space policies: EHRC (27 Aug 2025)
  • Notes: Official announcement of regulatory action; does not list the 19 organisations.
• An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment: EHRC (25 Apr 2025)
  • Notes: Explains EHRC’s reading of the ruling; interim advice not a change in statute.
• EHRC statement on Supreme Court ruling (For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers): EHRC (16 Apr 2025)
  • Notes: EHRC welcome statement; sets context for subsequent guidance work.
• Our enforcement powers: EHRC (Policy explainer)
  • Notes: Summarises sections 20–32 EA 2006; clarifies investigatory and court-based routes.

Context / Counterpoint

• NHS won’t ban trans women from female changing rooms ‘for months’: The Telegraph (6 Aug 2025)
  • Notes: Shows variability and delays even within reported ‘crackdown’ narrative.

Analysis / Commentary

• EHRC, The Times & The Telegraph are misrepresenting single-sex space policies to push anti-trans narratives: Medium (Mimmymum) (27 Aug 2025)
  • Notes: Critique of the month’s choreography; useful for balancing pack with analysis.