Green councillors in South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse are putting motions to their district councils to reaffirm support for trans and non-binary inclusion, directly challenging EHRC guidance that they say creates a legal minefield for organisations trying to remain inclusive. Councillor Katherine Foxhall called the guidance "cruel and unnecessary", while Councillor Sam Casey-Rerhaye said the council will do everything within the law to keep services safe and welcoming for trans residents, staff, and visitors.

When the people running services say the guidance does not work

What strikes me most about this story is not the politics of it. It is the plain, practical language these councillors are using. Katherine Foxhall, who is proposing the motion in Vale of White Horse, does not reach for ideology. She says the guidance "creates huge uncertainty and has a real-life impact." She says it leaves organisations facing "a legal minefield and significant expenses if they wish to continue being inclusive." That is the language of someone trying to do a job, not of someone making a statement.

And then she does make a statement: "This guidance is cruel and unnecessary. It cements exclusion, segregation and hostility, and it will cause real harm to trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming people." Because it is true, and it needed saying by someone in a position of responsibility.

Sam Casey-Rerhaye, proposing the South Oxfordshire motion, takes a slightly different but equally important tack. The motion acknowledges that the council has an obligation to comply with the law. It acknowledges that council staff have already been working hard to understand what the EHRC code means for their services. And then it says clearly: within those constraints, we will do everything we can to create a safe environment for transgender and non-binary residents, staff, and visitors.

That matters. Not because it solves everything, but because it is an elected body saying: these are our constituents. We were voted in to serve them. We are not going to read guidance designed to make their lives harder and treat it as permission to stop trying.

The guidance is causing harm before it has even been applied

One of the most insidious effects of guidance like this is the chilling effect it has long before any formal decision is made. Councils are cautious institutions. They have legal teams and risk registers and liability concerns. When the EHRC publishes something that says, in effect, that excluding trans women from women's services may now be legally required rather than merely permitted, plenty of organisations will simply act on the most restrictive possible reading, because that feels like the safe option.

It is not the safe option for the trans person who needs to use a leisure centre, or access housing support, or attend a community health service. For them, the "safe" reading is actively dangerous. It removes them from services they are entitled to use. It sends a message about whether they belong in public life at all.

This is what Katherine Foxhall means by a real-life impact. Trans people in South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse are not abstract policy questions. They are people who swim, and exercise, and need housing, and use libraries, and live in those communities. The guidance does not just affect how services are run on paper. It affects whether real people feel they can walk through the door.

Local government as a line of defence

There is something both encouraging and sobering about the fact that these motions are necessary at all. It is encouraging because it means that some elected representatives are paying attention, are willing to be counted, and are putting their names to something that takes genuine political courage in the current climate. Katherine Foxhall and Sam Casey-Rerhaye are doing exactly what councillors should do: representing the people who live in their area, including the ones whose lives are being made harder by decisions taken at a national level.

The sobering part is that trans people in the UK are increasingly having to look to local government for the kind of basic reassurance that should not be in question. The EHRC exists to protect equality. The guidance it has published has done the opposite, and it has done so in a way that has been widely criticised as confusing, internally inconsistent, and poorly reasoned. When the body charged with protecting your rights becomes a source of harm, you look for protection wherever you can find it.

Councils are not the final answer. They cannot override statute, and they cannot undo what the EHRC has done. But they can set a tone. They can make clear to trans residents, to staff, and to service providers what values guide decision-making in their area. They can choose not to use the guidance as cover for exclusion simply because it now arguably permits it. That is not nothing. For a trans person wondering whether the services in their town still have space for them, it can mean a great deal.

I hope both motions pass. And I hope other councils are watching.

If there is a news story you would like me to cover then just let Sammy know.

Dr Helen Webberley is a gender specialist, medical educator, and advocate, and the founder of GenderGP. She writes about gender diversity, trans healthcare, and the lives of trans people and their families.