When to use this
Use this template when a trans-inclusion decision is significant enough to need board or trustee approval — for example a change to a single-sex or separate-sex service, a facilities policy, or a policy that could be challenged. The board’s job is to authorise a defensible, documented process, not to reach a particular outcome. Named accountability matters: a paper that names the sponsor, the decision-maker, and the reviewer is a governance position.
How to use this template
Complete each section. Be candid about risk — a paper that understates risk invites challenge. The proportionality justification is the heart of the paper; trustees should test it, not rubber-stamp it.
Title
Paper title: Date: Sponsor / owner: Recommendation: (one line — what are you asking the board to approve?)
Background
What is the issue? How did it arise? What is the current position?
The decision required
What decision is the board being asked to make? What happens if the board defers?
Legal and regulatory context
Equality Act 2010: (Which protected characteristics are engaged — sex and gender reassignment, considered separately? Which Schedule 3 exceptions, if any, are in play? Note that exceptions are permissive powers, not duties to exclude.) Case law: (For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 held that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex. It did not require exclusion of anyone and did not affect gender reassignment as a separate characteristic under section 7.) EHRC statutory Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations: (The Code comes into force on 5 August 2026, with the 2011 Code revoked the same day. It is guidance an organisation must have regard to — not law itself. Record that the board has had regard to it.) Public sector equality duty (s149): (Due regard to sex and to gender reassignment, separately.)
Options analysis
For each option, record the pros, cons, and risk. Include at least a “do nothing” option and an inclusive or mixed option.
Option A — Do nothing:
- Pros:
- Cons:
- Risk:
Option B — [Describe]:
- Pros:
- Cons:
- Risk:
Option C — Inclusive or mixed option:
- Pros:
- Cons:
- Risk:
Proportionality justification
Legitimate aim: Is the means rationally connected to the aim? Is it the least restrictive means? Is the balance of needs fair — including the needs of trans people?
Equality impact
Impact on women (by sex): Impact on trans people (by gender reassignment): EqIA reference:
Risks and mitigations
| Risk | Category | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Categories: legal, reputational, operational, data-protection.)
Financial and resource implications
Costs: Resourcing:
Stakeholder and consultation position
Who was consulted? What did they say? How has that informed the recommendation?
Decision and rationale
Decision: Rationale: (In the board’s own words — why this option, why it is proportionate, why restriction is a last resort.)
Review mechanism
Review date: Review owner: Trigger for earlier review:
Sign-off: (Sponsor, board chair, date.)
This template provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. It is a scaffold to support your own documented, proportionate decision-making. Adapt it to your context and take specialist advice where your decision warrants it.