After the UK High Court ruled that “sex” in anti-discrimination law refers strictly to biological sex assigned at birth, one trans man set out to understand what that decision means in real terms. The results were revealing—and often unsettling.
Evan Wade, a 28-year-old trans man, contacted more than 60 gyms across the UK in April, asking whether he would be permitted to join. He explained his sex assigned at birth, his current gender identity, and his physical appearance—including a deep voice and beard following hormone therapy, and having had top surgery.
He wasn’t looking to join a gym. Instead, he was testing how inclusive—or confused—UK fitness centres had become following the controversial ruling, which effectively reversed 20 years of legal recognition of trans people in their lived gender “for all purposes.”
“Would you require proof of my genitalia?”
Wade’s approach included blunt, honest questions about where he might be allowed to change, and whether his self-identification as a man would be respected. He told The i Paper that many responses were disheartening.
One women-only gym responded:
“We would have to ask you a personal question on what genitalia you have… due to the comfort of the ladies.”
Wade asked:
“Would you be happy to take my word regarding my genitalia or would you require proof and, if so, how would I go about proving my genitalia?”
Their response:
“If you are born a female, you will have to use the female facilities.”
Other gyms offered similarly varied and conflicting replies. A Cambridgeshire gym rejected him outright:
“Our facilities are exclusively for women. Therefore, given that you identify as a man, we are unable to offer training at our facility.”
A gym in Oxfordshire said:
“As a female, you are welcome to join our women-only gym.”
And in East Sussex:
“Our membership policy is based on the legal definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010, which includes individuals who are biologically female. As such, you would be eligible to join.”
Large chains like Virgin Active and Total Fitness said they are currently seeking legal advice or awaiting clarification.
Industry Uncertainty & Community Backlash
The confusion among gym owners reflects the wider chaos caused by the ruling. Nancy Best, who runs Ladies Who Crunch, an online fitness club, criticised the new legislation:
“From a small business perspective, these kinds of legislations can cause really unhelpful conversations, disagreements, and upset.”
She added:
“I just don’t think that women have been creeping into changing rooms panicked that there’s going to be a trans woman there. Politely, they don’t give a f**k.”
“Imagine being the person that has to go into a changing room and start to remove people,” she said.
Cisgender gym-goers are also conflicted. Emily Warner, 22, told The i Paper:
“Even if you believe that a trans man is technically female, as the Supreme Court ruling says, I still think it would make a woman feel uncomfortable getting changed if there was a man in the room.”
“I assume this would feel equally uncomfortable for the trans man,” she acknowledged.
Interestingly, she added:
“If someone who presents as a woman, who looks like a woman, who identifies as a woman, were to use female spaces, I think that’s the only thing that makes sense.”
Melissa Gray, a fitness instructor from Leeds, offered a different perspective:
“Personally, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. It’s something I feel should be open and a freedom right. It wouldn’t faze me if I came into a class or changing room and there was a transgender man or woman.”
“I’m definitely not going in there”
For Wade, the biggest concern was being told to use the women’s changing rooms—something he said felt not only degrading but also unsafe.
“That really shook me,” he said. “I’m definitely not going in there. If I had to use female facilities, I’m going to be challenged. I’m going to have to explain myself.”
“I don’t mind being asked respectfully,” he added. “But I wouldn’t want to have to wear a trans pin or anything like that.”
The situation highlights the personal cost of legal rulings that ignore lived reality. Wade’s experience shows how institutional confusion trickles down to the day-to-day lives of trans people, forcing them to navigate policies that are both unclear and, at times, humiliating.
