Sex and the City
Finance is a highly regulated sector where legal compliance is taken very seriously. A widespread impression that sexism and sex-based harassment have long been rife in financial firms has led to high-profile pledges to understand the barriers that women face in the sector, to ensure that policies meet their needs, to crack down on sexist banter and workplace behaviour that disadvantages women, and to support women in remaining in the sector, being promoted and reaching leadership positions.
You might think, then, that financial firms would have been quick to act after the Supreme Court judgment of 2025 that “sex” in the Equality Act means biology, not self-ID or paperwork. The judgment is clear that any other reading makes it impossible to protect women from discrimination and harassment; the financial sector says it takes stopping such discrimination and harassment seriously; and City firms are well-equipped with in-house lawyers and accustomed to acting quickly in response to legal and regulatory changes.
You would be wrong. A new report from Sex Matters, Sex-based rights in the City: the financial sector’s failure of compliance, finds that firms in the financial sector have failed to update their understanding of the law or their policies on access to single-sex spaces in line with the judgment. Anonymous enquiries were made using whistleblowing procedures to 15 large financial institutions operating across the UK asking about policies concerning access to workplace toilets. Not one of the 15 replied clearly stating that they provided single-sex toilets as required by workplace regulations, and restricted access to people of that (biological) sex.
Making their excuses
The main reason for inaction given was that organisations were “waiting for guidance” from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (a reference to the revised code of practice for service providers expected to be published later this month by Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Women and Equalities). Others said their policies were under review, that they were monitoring an area of law they characterised as complex and evolving, that they had gender-neutral toilets available or simply that they were legally compliant without giving any details.
Six of the organisations were known through other channels to have continued with non-compliant policies after the Supreme Court judgment, either formally or as a proven willingness to allow trans-identifying people to use facilities for the opposite sex.
Follow-up anonymous interviews with employees from five of the 15 firms shed light on why firms had adopted gender self-ID policies in the first place, despite this never having been UK law, and why those firms had failed to reverse course after the judgment.
The main reasons for adopting self-ID, according to the interviewees, were pressure from internal staff LGBT+ networks and external lobby groups such as Stonewall, and senior staff bowing to this pressure. Opinions varied as to whether this was because those senior staff truly believed it was the right thing to do, because they misguidedly thought it was “inclusive”, or because they thought it was unimportant either way.
Opinions also varied concerning whether it would be hard to get things back on track. Some interviewees said they thought their employer had not acted out of any deep conviction and would change course if that became the easy option, whereas others thought firms would be reluctant to admit that they had got things wrong and would only do so if their hands were forced by government and regulators.
That their employer takes compliance with a law that exists to protect women so unseriously, despite claiming to be breaking the glass ceiling for women and taking a meticulous approach to legal compliance in all other spheres, made the interviewees angry, frustrated and cynical. This was exacerbated by the strong suspicion that complaining would get them nowhere and might invite personal reprisals.
Getting the herd to turn
Fixing this will take coordinated action and leadership. The Minister for Women and Equalities needs to lay the EHRC guidance for service providers before Parliament, as she has promised, thus removing the main excuse cited by financial firms for failing to act. The government needs to show leadership by fixing non-compliant policies in the public sector. The Financial Conduct Authority (which regulates the City) and the Health and Safety Executive (which provides guidance on workplace regulations ) need to state clearly what is required for employers to comply.
And finally, senior leaders in City firms need to understand that legal compliance in this area is no more optional than in any other – and that if they continue to fail to act, they risk cynicism and disengagement from large numbers of their female employees.
Read Sex-based rights in the City: the financial sector’s failure of compliance.