The government has confirmed Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson as the next Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), in a move likely to shape how public bodies apply sex-based rights following a recent Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the Equality Act 2010 defines sex as biological, not self-identified.
Dr Stephenson, whose appointment has drawn criticism from some trans rights activists and their parliamentary allies over perceived gender-critical leanings, will take up the post on 1 December, succeeding Baroness Kishwer Falkner.
Appointed after an open competition, she appeared before the Women and Equalities Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights in July for a pre-appointment hearing. A veteran campaigner with over 30 years’ experience in the academic and third sectors, she is Director of the Women’s Budget Group and holds a PhD in equality law.
Her appointment follows the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers ruling, in which the UK’s highest court confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. The judgment clarified that even where someone has obtained legal recognition of a different gender through a Gender Recognition Certificate they are not to be treated as the opposite sex for the purposes of sex-based rights and protections in settings such as women-only changing rooms or sports teams.
Although the ruling has significant implications for policy on single-sex spaces, data collection and workplace protections, its implementation across the public sector has been uneven.
Several institutions – including civil service departments – have cited the absence of updated EHRC guidance as a reason for delay, despite the regulator stating in April that the ruling is “effective immediately”. Sources say there is frustration within the EHRC at claims that organisations must wait for formal guidance. The Commission, which merely clarifies the implications of the law, has already stated that employers and service providers are legally obliged to comply with the judgment.
Earlier this summer, Sir Keir Starmer appeared to echo that position, urging public bodies to do so “as soon as possible”. A government spokesperson added: “The judgment is binding, and public bodies should be acting on it now. There is no basis for inaction.”
Against this backdrop, Dr Stephenson’s appointment proved contentious. In the weeks leading up to her confirmation, she faced coordinated opposition from trans rights groups and MPs who questioned her suitability for the role.
Activists pointed to her support for women’s groups that had been “no-platformed” and to open letters she signed in The Guardian in 2015 and 2017, which called for civil discussion of gender ideology and warned of “a pattern of intimidation and silencing” of dissenting views.
The controversy highlights a deeper divide within Labour and the equalities sector over how the ruling should be implemented. For some in the party’s pro-trans wing, the EHRC is seen as the last institutional lever available to resist full implementation of the judgment.
Leaked messages from a Labour LGBT+ MPs’ WhatsApp group, posted after the ruling, revealed unease at the prospect of a biologically grounded interpretation of “sex” being enforced. Home Office minister Dame Angela Eagle warned that “the ruling is not as catastrophic as it seems, but the EHRC guidance might be”, while culture minister Sir Chris Bryant appeared to endorse Labour MP Steve Race’s description of outgoing Chair Baroness Falkner as “pretty appalling” during a BBC Radio 4 interview in which she said the ruling would affect access to single-sex spaces and women’s sport.
Dr Stephenson addressed these controversies directly during her pre-appointment hearing before MPs and peers in July. She defended her support for women who had faced professional consequences for expressing gender-critical views and explained her decision to donate to the legal fund of barrister Allison Bailey, who was awarded damages last year after a tribunal found she had been discriminated against for opposing gender self-identification.
“The donation was specifically because I was upset at seeing women being harassed or sacked from their jobs for peaceful expression of legally protected beliefs,” she told MPs.
Drawing on her early work at Article 19, a human rights organisation focused on freedom of expression, she said that “attempting to close down debate in any area is generally a mistake,” and added: “Had we been able to have better dialogue on some of these issues ten years ago, we might be in a better position than we are now.”
After the hearing, committee chairs Sarah Owen and Lord Alton wrote to Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson urging her to reconsider the appointment. The letter raised concerns about Dr Stephenson’s experience running large organisations. Signatories also claimed she lacked “a suitable depth of understanding of enough issues facing groups with other protected characteristics”.
Trans rights were not mentioned, but the political context was clear.
The letter followed on from a hearing in which MPs repeatedly questioned Dr Stephenson on gender identity. Though framed as scrutiny of her impartiality, the session often resembled an attempt to root out whether she held gender-critical views, with questions leaning “heavily” on letters from transgender activists.
Members of both committees also reported being lobbied heavily by activist groups, while at least three panel members opposed sending the letter – including gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield, who stated on social media that she had declined to sign.
Despite the pressure, Ms Phillipson confirmed the appointment, citing Dr Stephenson’s extensive equalities experience and rejecting claims she lacked the necessary skills.
The EHRC is now preparing a formal code of practice to help public authorities apply the Supreme Court ruling. The guidance is expected to clarify how the ruling affects single-sex spaces such as toilets, changing rooms and women-only associations, while also addressing the provision of gender-neutral alternatives.
In the meantime, the Commission has issued non-statutory advice indicating that trans-identifying males may no longer be entitled to access spaces designated for women under the Equality Act.
