JK Rowling has pledged to bankroll lawsuits defending women's sex-based rights, as opposition to a landmark Supreme Court ruling grows. The Harry Potter author's Women's Fund provides financial support to individuals and groups challenging ideologies that threaten single-sex spaces.
Rowling's Intervention Amid Public Sector Resistance
The intervention comes as the NHS faces warnings that attempts to bypass single-sex clarity will lead to costly legal battles. The 61-year-old campaigner urged female patients and staff to apply for funding if they need to fight assaults on their legal rights.
Rowling said: "The decision of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers clarified that the term 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refers, and has always referred, to biological sex. Despite this judgment, many organisations are still failing in their duty to guarantee single-sex spaces for women and girls. For that reason, the fund is currently prioritising cases which will help ensure that the ruling has a practical effect in women's and girls' day-to-day lives."
EHRC Code Update Sparks Chaos
Her remarks come as opposition grows against the Equality and Human Rights Commission's updated code of practice, which was revised to reflect the Supreme Court ruling. The judgment, issued on April 16 last year, confirmed that biological sex is irrefutable under the Equality Act. The code, covering England, Scotland and Wales, states that a service must be used on the basis of biological sex to be classed as single-sex.
Instead of providing clarity, the code has caused division, with several left-wing London councils and NHS trusts vowing to resist it, calling it "harmful to the rights of trans people".
Legal Battles and NHS Humiliation
The fighting fund supports those who have lost livelihoods, suffered harm, or been discriminated against for their beliefs on biological sex. Rowling added: "The thing is, neither the men who erroneously believe that they're women, nor the men who get a sexual thrill from dressing as women, are, in fact, women. They're all men. Their motives are irrelevant. Men aren't entitled to women's hard-earned rights."
Supporters of the ruling said resistance demonstrates that the public sector has been "captured by a deeply damaging ideology", leaving them open to legal challenges with costs borne by taxpayers. The code is not legally binding but provides guidance on complying with existing law.
County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust allowed a male nurse to use single-sex facilities, but in January, an employment tribunal found seven female colleagues were victims of unlawful discrimination. Bethany Hutchison, who led the fight, told the Daily Express: "Too many employers adopted Stonewall-inspired policies that treated contested ideas about 'gender' as though they were settled law. Women who questioned those policies were too often portrayed as the problem, rather than listened to as employees raising legitimate concerns."
She added: "The EHRC's updated code of practice brings welcome clarity for services, public functions and associations. But it does not cover employment. So, where is the equivalent guidance for workplaces? The absence of an updated employment code is not permission for employers to ignore the Equality Act, workplace regulations or court judgments."
Councils and Trusts Vow Resistance
The London boroughs of Lambeth, Hackney, Haringey, Lewisham, Southwark and Waltham Forest said they will keep services gender inclusive, while dozens of NHS trusts and other public institutions will do the same, paving the way for more litigation. County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust is liable for up to £1.25m, including legal costs, after losing its case against seven women who objected to a man using their safe space.
Mrs Hutchison and six colleagues won a £187,833.58 settlement, a public apology, and an assurance that the policy would be axed. Another nurse, Jennifer Melle, was reinstated after Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust settled out of court.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said the public sector's obsession with "radical gender ideology" makes a mockery of the law and said: "The Government must act to end these absurd witch hunts." Tory Peer Baroness Sharron Davies said: "It is certifiably illogical, bordering on an insane idea, definitely delusional, to say a biological male is now a woman because…wait for it...he says so."
Government Urged to Act
Under the EHRC guidance, providers can exclude trans people from single-sex spaces if others could object. This means men identifying as women have no right to be in female-only spaces like changing rooms, but workplaces like hospitals and council-run buildings remain immune. The guidance was first sent to the Government in September 2025, but it has taken almost 18 months to reach this point, with the Labour government blamed for failing to protect women-only spaces.
Mrs Hutchison said: "The Government must now say what guidance employers will receive, when they will receive it and who will ensure that it is followed, and we are now seeking an urgent meeting with the new Health Secretary, Yvette Cooper, to ensure this happens. NHS trusts need legally accurate direction, proper training and accountability. Nurses who raise concerns need protection from retaliation and professional harm. Women should not have to become whistleblowers or litigants simply to secure dignity at work. The law has spoken. The burden of enforcing it cannot continue to fall on hard-working women. It is time for the Government, regulators and employers to do their jobs."
An NHS spokesperson said: "The NHS will publish approved new guidance for the health service on single sex accommodation shortly, in line with other public sector bodies. In the meantime, hospitals should be acting within the principles set out in the EHRC code to ensure all patients are cared for with dignity and respect." A Government spokesperson added: "Everyone should follow the law. The code gives service providers the clear, workable guidance they need, and if organisations are still unclear, they should get specialist legal advice."
