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.