What might happen next: Possible paths for the EHRC Code of Practice

There’s a strange quiet right now…and for many of us, quiet feels dangerous. After a flurry of developments around the EHRC’s proposed Code of Practice, things have gone still. That silence raises questions: are they preparing to push it through while attention is low, or has something shifted behind the scenes?

The EHRC’s recent public letter demanding that the government “sign off” the code immediately has created visible political friction. Some members of the House of Lords are reportedly unhappy with the EHRC’s attempt to pressure ministers using tactics that mirror letter-writing campaigns by groups such as Sex Matters. Pair this with the fact that sections of interim guidance have already been quietly removed – and suddenly, the EHRC’s authority looks much less certain.

We don’t have certainty yet. But we do have signals – and based on them, several possible directions emerge.

What could happen:

Lawmakers take issue with the EHRC’s overreach. Rather than rubber-stamping the code, they question it more closely, potentially sending it back for amendment or delaying its adoption.

Why this is plausible:

• Parliament does not take kindly to being publicly instructed by a regulator.
• Adopting campaigning-style pressure tactics may have undermined the EHRC’s neutrality.
• Ongoing legal challenges (e.g. the Good Law Project) highlight that the code may be legally unstable.
• Quiet removals of previously “acceptable” sections show internal inconsistency.

If this happens, our response can focus on:

• Supporting the delay with clear, reasoned public commentary.
• Offering constructive guidance on what a truly fair and lawful code should include.
• Reassuring communities that “slower” means more time to act, not vulnerability.
• Using the breathing room to build coalition strategy, not panic.

Tone we hold: This is a moment to keep shaping the narrative, not to relax into complacency.

What could happen:

The quiet period turns out to be a tactical lull. The government presses the code through quickly, possibly to avoid renewed scrutiny and debate.

Why this is plausible:

• Silence can be a staging ground for fast procedural moves.
• The EHRC’s demand for instant adoption suggests a strategy built on urgency.
• Passing controversial measures quickly is a known political tactic, especially when opposition energy is perceived to be waning.

If this happens, our response becomes urgent and practical:

• Rapid pu.blic information explaining what has changed and how people may be affected
• Coordinating with legal allies for rapid challenges.
• Creating ‘know your rights‘ resources to help workers, students, and service users navigate shifts in policy.
• Providing gentle emotional containment: ‘We still have tools. There are legal routes. You are not without protection.’

Tone we hold: Firm, steady, focused on equipping rather than fuelling fear. The emphasis is on harm reduction, guidance, and resilience.

What could happen:

In response to political discomfort, lawmakers push through a reduced or revised version framed as a ‘balanced‘ compromise – potentially with implementation guidance or future review commitments.

Why this is plausible:

• Politicians often seek a middle route when pressure is high from multiple directions.
• The EHRC’s own rollback of certain guidance weakens their case for full adoption.
• There may be incentives for the government to appear both responsive and decisive.

If this happens, our focus shifts to careful interpretation and mitigation:

• Explaining what the final code actually means in practice – which may differ from headlines.
• Highlighting protective loopholes, reviewing language for challenge opportunities.
• Working with unions, HR teams, educators, service providers to prevent over-interpretation or misuse.
• Preparing long-term strategies to soften or overturn harmful sections.

Tone we hold: Adaptive, analytical, and committed to turning partial wins into stronger protections over time.

Across all possible futures: We stay calm, informed, and active – not panicked.

Regardless of which path unfolds, we are not powerless. Codes can be challenged, revised, reinterpreted, resisted in practice, and ultimately replaced. Harm can be minimised. Communities can stay supported. Legal frameworks evolve under pressure and that pressure can come from us.

We continue to move with:

• Clarity: naming risks honestly without catastrophising.
• Compassion: centering trans people’s real emotional impacts.
• Steadiness: reminding people they are not alone in this.
• Purpose: being ready with resources rather than only reactions.