If you’ve noticed the atmosphere changing around trans rights, you’re not imagining it. For five years, the UK has been trapped in a culture war that seemed to have no end. We saw provocative headlines, furious debates, complex court cases, and an extraordinary amount of fear stirred up on all sides.
And then, almost overnight, the noise stopped.
Not because anything was solved.
Not because harmony broke out.
But because the entire system has jammed.
We are about to enter 2026 in the middle of a legal and political stalemate on sex and gender. And while politicians have seemingly stepped away from the fight, HR Directors, DEI leads, CEOs, and service providers are now expected to make decisions about dignity, respect, safety, compliance and culture - without any guidance from government.
In this article, I want to help you understand how we got here, why everything has stalled, what’s coming next, and what your organisation needs to do to stay safe, lawful and compassionate in this confusing new landscape.
Part 1 - The Engine Behind the Culture War: Tufton Street and the Anti-Woke Network
The gender-critical movement did not appear by chance. It was not a spontaneous backlash. It was the result of a highly coordinated and well-funded campaign - much of it centred on the powerful network of organisations in and around 55 Tufton Street in London.
This Westminster cluster has long hosted a collection of libertarian, anti-regulation, anti-woke think-tanks and campaign bodies. They share staff, donors, strategy consultants, researchers and communications teams. Some share property ownership. Several sit on each other’s boards. Many promote the same ideological agenda.
This network has driven campaigns on:
- anti-trans policy
- anti-net-zero messaging
- anti-immigration rhetoric
- privatisation
- deregulation
- free speech battles
- climate scepticism
- Brexit
And when it comes to trans rights, the Tufton Street ecosystem found the perfect wedge issue: emotionally charged, poorly understood, and easy to weaponise.
The formula was simple.
The think tank produces a report.
The supporting media outlets turn it into a crisis.
Politicians cite the report as justification for a new policy.
The regulator - increasingly filled with sympathetic appointees - validates it.
This is classic policy laundering. It creates the illusion of broad-based concern when in reality the agenda is driven by a small, organised, well-connected network.
People linked directly or indirectly to this ecosystem include Liz Truss, Kemi Badenoch, Dominic Cummings, Nigel Farage, the Free Speech Union, Sex Matters and several other campaign groups behind the gender-critical movement. Their connections vary, but the pattern is impossible to ignore.
This machine laid the groundwork for the 2025 Supreme Court ruling that redefined sex in the Equality Act as biological sex. But what the Tufton Street architects did not anticipate was that their political coalition would collapse before they could enforce the change.
And that is exactly what has happened.
Part 2 — The Collapse of the Gender-Critical Coalition
Now, as we reach the end of 2025, the key actors who drove the anti-trans policy agenda have either lost power or lost credibility.
Liz Truss, who had been the key driver at the start by blocking the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) reform and appointing anti-trans commissioners to the EHRC, is no longer politically relevant.
Kemi Badenoch, the fiercest culture-warrior in government who had taken over the reins from Truss, now shouts from the sidelines of opposition.
Nigel Farage and Reform, who had used trans as a “wedge issue” to capture both Conservative and Labour voters, have now shifted their focus to economics, immigration and net-zero opposition.
Most importantly, Baroness Kishwer Falkner - the centrepiece of this strategy - has now left the EHRC.
Her rushed interim guidance, issued nine days after the Supreme Court ruling, was intended to impose a strict biological interpretation across public services and workplaces. Several organisations adopted it immediately, assuming it was authoritative.
It wasn’t.
It lacked proper consultation.
It contradicted existing case law.
It exposed organisations to serious risk.
And it was withdrawn just before it reached a courtroom.
This withdrawal of the Interim Guidelines is central to the Good Law Project v EHRC case, which argues that the regulator acted unlawfully by:
- running a flawed consultation process
- excluding trans experts
- relying on one-sided, pre-selected evidence
- publishing a premature, ideologically shaped guidance
The High Court judgment is expected in January 2026. Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Women and Equalities, has delayed approval of the final guidelines despite several public appeals from Falkner before her term expired last weekend. It’s likely that a barrage of opposition from business leaders, MPs and the European Commission on Human Rights, and the likelihood of the EHRC losing it’s court battle, made accepting Falkner’s guidelines far too politically dangerous.
With Falkner gone and the regulator discredited, I predict that no guidance will be issued for a long time. More likely, Phillipson will give the new chair, Dr. Mary-Ann Stephenson, until the new year to settle in and appoint a few more commissioners with a more positive or neutral stance on trans issues. She will then return the unapproved guidelines, requesting that the EHRC have another look at them, which will undoubtedly mean a new, less biased consultation process.
I doubt that we will see new guidelines before late 2026; maybe not before 2027.
The culture warriors have lost their machinery.
Part 3 - The Last Combatant Standing: The Free Speech Union
While the government politicians have moved on, the Free Speech Union (FSU) has not. In fact, they have pivoted to become the primary disruptor of the new status quo. They thrive in grey areas. They weaponise uncertainty. Their speciality is fast, well-funded litigation designed to frighten HR teams into backing away from trans inclusion.
Led by founder Toby Young, the FSU has positioned itself as the "resistance" to the new Labour administration. They are no longer just defending individuals; they are actively and aggressively planning to litigate.
Unfortunately, the Employment Rights Bill, currently completing its passage through parliament, gives the FSU new opportunities to argue that:
- pronoun policies are harassment
- misgendering policies are harassment
- dignity-at-work rules are harassment
Why they matter for 2026:
The FSU has mastered the art of "Lawfare." They understand that most HR departments are risk-averse. By funding high-profile cases - like the civil servant "Ms. Frances" or the Newcastle United fan banned for gender-critical views - they create a "chilling effect." We can expect the FSU to target private sector employers who try to maintain trans-inclusive policies, threatening legal action to force them to adopt "gender-critical" protections.
They thrive on ambiguity, and the current stalemate gives them ample room to manoeuvre. And they are already preparing cases.
And that means your organisation must prepare too.
Part 4 - The Employment Rights Bill: Why 2026 May Be the Most Legally Confusing Year Yet
The new Bill expands employer duties around:
- harassment
- third-party harassment
- prevention of hostile environments
This is good news for most workers - but in the context of gender identity, it creates a legal minefield.
Trans employees can rely on harassment law if they are misgendered, demeaned or outed.
Gender-critical employees can argue that suppressing their beliefs is harassment.
Employers can face claims from both sides.
And with no guidance from the EHRC, tribunals in 2026 will be dealing with everything on a case-by-case basis.
We will likely see:
- belief harassment claims
- trans harassment claims
- conflicting tribunal decisions
- more settlement agreements
- more mediation
- and more confusion
This is why you need to act before the chaos starts.
Part 5 — The Stalemate: Where We Stand Today
As we begin 2026, we are in a strange situation:
- The Supreme Court ruling stands.
- The interim EHRC guidance is gone.
- The final guidance has not been approved.
- A High Court case hangs over everything.
- A new EHRC Chair must rebuild trust.
- The government has moved on to immigration.
- The FSU is gearing up for legal action.
This is not peace - It's a cold peace; a bureaucratic bog; organisational paralysis.
Part 6 — What Your Organisation Must Do in 2026
In a stalemate like this, organisations need clarity, confidence, and a strategy that avoids legal risk from all directions.
Here is my practical advice.
1. Don’t wait for Westminster
The cavalry isn't coming. The government is happy to leave you in the grey area rather than make a controversial decision. You need to write your own policy now that balances legal compliance with your corporate values.
2. Understand the Section 22 paradox (The Stealth Trap)
This is the most critical risk area. While the Supreme Court says you can restrict facilities to biological sex, Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act makes it a criminal offence to "out" someone with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) or trans history.
In practice, you cannot police toilets without risking a criminal record. If you ban a trans woman who is "in stealth" (passing), you implicitly reveal her trans status to her colleagues. Do not build a policy that relies on managers knowing who is "biologically" female - they often don't know, and they legally can't ask.
This makes biological policing impossible.
You cannot check sex.
You cannot ask.
You cannot verify.
And you cannot keep lists.
A “biological sex only” policy is legally unenforceable.
3. Focus on behaviour, not identity
The Supreme Court changed the definition of "sex," but it did not change the definition of harassment. Misgendering a colleague, creating a hostile environment, or "outing" a trans employee remains unlawful.
The FSU may argue that employees have a "free speech right" to gender-critical views. You must clarify the distinction: You have a right to your beliefs (protected), but you do not have a right to conduct that harasses others (unprotected).
Your policy should explicitly state: "While we comply with the single-sex exemptions where necessary, we have zero tolerance for harassment. Gratuitous misgendering or questioning a colleague’s gender in the workplace is a disciplinary offence."
Harassment, voyeurism, aggression, and exhibitionism are behaviours, and managing behaviour is always lawful.
Policing identity is not.
4. The Infrastructure Solution
You can’t solve a physical problem with a policy document. The only future-proof solution is Gender-Neutral, Self-Contained Facilities (superloos). They bypass the entire legal debate. If you are refurbishing in 2026, this is your only safe investment against both FSU lawsuits and discrimination claims.
5. Train staff in the new boundaries
Most problems come from confusion. Staff need clear, simple rules that keep everyone safe.
This is where my workshops and keynote speeches can make the biggest difference.
The War Has Fizzled Out. The Mess Remains.
The gender-critical movement reshaped the law, but it failed to keep the political power needed to enforce its own vision. The Tufton Street network has fractured. The EHRC has been discredited. Politicians have moved on.
The result is a legal grey zone where nobody knows what to do – but:
Employers cannot wait.
Schools cannot wait.
NHS trusts cannot wait.
Councils cannot wait.
Charities cannot wait.
You have people to protect. You have values to uphold. You have laws to follow.
This is why I am focusing my 2026 work on helping organisations navigate this complexity with clarity, compassion and confidence.
If your team needs to understand how to stay inclusive while staying safe - without being dragged into a culture war that Westminster has already abandoned - I am here to help.
I offer keynote speeches, leadership briefings, and staff training designed to give you practical, lawful, human solutions.
Get in touch to discuss how I can help your organisation.
Let’s bring dignity, respect and clarity back into this conversation — and build a workplace where everyone can thrive.
1 Comment