An article in Personnel Today that takes a welcome pragmatic approach to the delay in publishing the Code of Practice. In summary: while the government delays, thousands of organisations are breaking the law. Don't wait for the Code of Practice. Toilets must be single sex, based on biological sex at birth of the user. Sort them out now if you don't have them already. What's been happening since 2011 is illegal. The Supreme Court judgement doesn't change anything. It confirms what was always the case. The last 15 years have been an aberation.

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/hr-neednt-wait-for-updated-code-on-single-sex-spaces/

That's fair. Probably my post was unnecessary - I was just trying to point out that there's no such thing as single-sex spaces if you can't exclude men, so in that sense the SC ruling was seismic, affirming: yes, there is (and always has been) such a thing as single sex spaces. But the statement wasn't meant in that way and as you note, the focus of the case and reasoning were elsewhere.

He just can't quite grapple with the idea that women exist and are not subordinate to his wishes.

I think a psychiatrist could make much of this.

Yes, but single sex spaces are just one part of a framework of rights and services that women lose if sex is not defined in the EA.

I resent the idea that single sex spaces (and I think that here they mean toilets) were the 'central repercussion'.

If legislation can't define women, we lose everything.

Well, in a sense the SC ruling was about a 'commitment to single-sex spaces' because by including men, they weren't single sex spaces. But apparently it's still not possible to say that out-loud.

Fox botherer is confused..

Any changes will not water down what the government says is a commitment to single-sex spaces, which was the central repercussion of the supreme court ruling.

This seems to be a misunderstanding of the ruling.

The central repercussion of the ruling was the sex in the equality act refers to biological sex and is not changed by a GRC.

The ruling was not that the government needs to make a commitment to single sex spaces, but that a single sex space must exclude all men.

There is a separate argument that mixed sex spaces discriminate against women and that is what they will be facing if they don't provide adequate services.

But the Unions aren't opposed to that clear and useful new guidance on mobile phone use in schools. So she doesn't need to delegate that decision to them and shamelessly obstruct a much-needed Code of Practice that the Unions dislike.

Phillipson does whatever is best for Phillipson. She is wholly unwilling to stand up to those Unions that she desperately hopes will help her become leader/PM.

Fortunately she is devoid of charisma and cannot think on her feet. Phillipson's lack of integrity is very obvious as soon as she speaks on issues where the Unions decide her views for her. How will she cope with 'Can a woman have a penis?' or 'Can a human change sex?' or 'Is a trans woman considered to be a man under the Equality Act?' questions. She'll implode every time.

The more the public see and hear, the less they will like Phillipson or be willing to vote for her. No-one wants to be led by a captured shill, beating the drum for a small group of men who perform their sexual fetish in public and invade women-only spaces. It's not remotely the behaviour of a future leader/PM.

Her downfall awaits.

I note Phillispon has wasted no time in issuing clear new guidance ro schools on the issue of mobile phones - no impact assessements being demanded there.

Yes, I agree. Some people seem to wilfully conflate having a single occupancy room with integral basin, which is for use by everyone - with having to now label it as either 'male' or 'female'. This is, of course, nonsense.

Some organisations are going to have to make some adaptations to their facilities; mostly newer businesses or businesses which had been captured by Stonewall's false advice. For example, the new Manchester Aviva studios has mixed sex facilities only...but they have a shared basin area, which is not compliant. It will be a bit more complicated and bit more costly for them to become compliant. I wonder how they will handle that? It would be very costly to put in a washbasin into every single cubicle - since there are lots of them. It is a very large venue.

Other businesses will simply have to create an additional single occupancy mixed sex facility alongside their already existing male and female provision.

Restaurants such as 'Rosa's Thai' have two or three single occupancy toilets labelled as 'All genders'. This is very confusing -simply being a tokenistic nod to gender ideology. Most people will have no clue what 'all genders' actually means. They will need to be re-labelled simply as 'W.C'.

The new Yoko Ono auditorium in Liverpool had the common sense to create an additional single 'gender neutral' facility alongside the single sex blocks when it was built...so they are already totally compliant.

This seems unfair. On a chat forum people are going to chat, and say what they feel to be appopriate. Personally I don't see the point of posts that simply reproduce wholesale a news story from the Express or whatever, without any commentary on why they are reproducing the story. We can all browse the internet and set up google alerts, etc. We don't need everything to be copied in here. But I'm sure others have different views.

... I mean, I don't doubt that this was already set out clearly, but more words on the subject could be reassuring/appeasing etc.

A lot of the scaremongering around the guidance seems to be founded on a false belief that businesses/employers/etc have to provide sex-segregated toilets even if they have, until now, been providing a fully enclosed room (not cubicles - a room) for both sexes.

Could it be that the guidance is being changed just to spell out more clearly the actual responsibilities dutyholders have?

soooooo much time and money and political capital expended all so that no one has to say no to men

I also think, that a lot of people don't realise, that despite having 411 seats in Parliament, Labour only had 33.9% of the vote at the 2024 General Election. Add to that the fact, that the turnout was an abysmal 59.7%.

Can we get an FOI on any internal conversations/discussion on Teams, Slack, email, etc on the process for reviewing and issuing the guidance? If there is an impact assessment, how was it designed and who’s involved, etc?

For our dedicated little party supporters, no matter who is in charge we will still need to fight for women’s rights. Don’t expect any white knights to come look after the little ladies.

I think the pragmatism is going to be that unisex spaces dont have to meet the current standards.

For example, if the stalls are floor to ceiling it doesnt matter that the wash basin is in a shared space.

And the article quotes Rachel Taylor 🙄 The women and equalities committee, given that it is, with a couple of notable exceptions, stuffed full of TRAs, is definitely having a hand in the delay to the code of practice being published.

I'm trying to read through the Guardian's obvious spin and bias to figure out what is going on here:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/27/ehrc-guidance-single-sex-spaces-new-chair-mary-ann-stephenson

For example, this bit,

"Any changes will not water down what the government says is a commitment to single-sex spaces, which was the central repercussion of the supreme court ruling. However, the hope is that a more pragmatic approach could limit the impact on trans people, and avoid excessive costs and confusion for businesses in terms of changes to toilets and changing rooms".

The law is the law. How do you maintain that single sex means bio sex, whilst making it more pragmatic for businesses? Does it mean slapping a gender neutral label on toilets? 😕 And TRAs aren't going to be happy unless they have access to opposite sex facilities. That is the only measure that they will argue won't have a negative impact on them.

So unlikely to be able delay until after the may elections?

Phillipson has no fixed statutory deadline under s.14 Equality Act 2006, but she must decide (approve and lay, or reject with written reasons) within a reasonable time and without undue delay — standard public law requirement.

• 0–3 months: normally fine
• 3–6 months: acceptable if justified (impact checks, etc.)
• Beyond 6 months: increasingly hard to defend without strong, public reasons; risks judicial review for undue delay/prejudice.
At 4.5+ months it’s already stretching the upper limit of reasonable. Further extension without clear justification would likely cross into unlawful territory.
She can’t just sit on it indefinitely.

It’s the window in which she must send the guidance back that is key. I do not believe there is a fixed time limit, so it will get forced through the courts again I presume?

If anyone has been following my efforts to make female changing rooms single sex - you will be interested to know they specifically say they will not make any changes until the EHRC guidance is published (and DFE)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5461521-single-sex-changing-spaces-in-a-brighton-secondary-school-part-2-the-one-with-the-solicitors-and-the-vexatious-parent?reply=150116455&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Yes, exactly, they haven’t withdrawn the 2011 one because they want the status quo to continue, at least for now. Lower courts I guess might take that into consideration in tribunals - that the extant 2011 code of practice says men can use female spaces, in the absence of any other (ie the one awaiting sign off), despite conflicting with the SC ruling.

Answering a question posted in the previous thread, now I have finally caught up:

@nicepotoftea · 20/01/2026 10:55

I thought that BP is delaying because she wants an impact assessment, not because she claims the guidance isn't lawful?

And doesn't she have the option to send the guidance back if she thinks it isn't lawful?

So confusing.

---

The Equality Impact Assessment pretend-issue:

EHRC Statement
Our letter to the Minister for Women and Equalities about government action on our draft code of practice
Published: 15 October 2025

Dear Secretary of State,

Subject: Government action on draft Code of Practice

I am writing to follow up on my letter of 4 September that submitted our draft Code of Practice for services, public functions, and associations (the Code) for your approval for laying before Parliament. Tomorrow (16 October) will mark six months since the judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers was issued, which clarified amongst other things the correct legal interpretation of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010. It will also be six weeks since we submitted the draft Code to you.

Note to self: must stop calling it "Guidance" - it is a "Code of Practice".

As you will be aware, the version of the Code currently published by EHRC (in 2011) is based on an understanding of the meaning of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 which has now been declared by the Supreme Court to be incorrect. The practical implications of this are that our 2011 Code, which remains the published version of the code, now contains some incorrect analysis that is inconsistent with the law in certain high-profile areas of the law. In accordance with the Equality Act 2006, this version of the code remains extant until you make an order to withdraw it and must legally be considered in certain circumstances. In turn, this might create uncertainty on our ability to take compliance or enforcement action for breach of the Equality Act.

Note: so we are also waiting for Phillipson to make an order to withdraw the 2011 Code of Practice. I expect it has been hidden in the bottom of that locked filing cabinet in the basement stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard".

We are aware that some organisations are continuing to refer to and rely upon this outdated version of the Code and anticipate continuing to do so until the revised Code is published. This is in our view unhelpful, including to the EHRC’s objectives. We also note that there are several parts of the Code unrelated to sex and gender law that are inaccurate due to the passage of time and developments in the law.

Note: Ah! So there are other bits of the 2011 Code that were updated in the Draft. I don't recall Phillipson mentioning any of them specifically so I assume that they are not contentious?

As you will appreciate, the longer the period before the new Code can be published, the longer the current unsatisfactory state of affairs will continue, therefore allowing practices inconsistent with the law to persist.

Phillipson: "Am I bovvered?"
Unions for Shitting on Women: "No, not if you know what's good for you!"

As the body responsible for the enforcement of equality law, we recognise our own responsibility to ensure that our updated draft Code reflects the law accurately. We are confident that the draft provided to you now does so. It is consequently our strong preference, having been advised at expert level about its scope and accuracy, that the updated draft Code be brought into force as soon as possible to reflect the law as it has now been clarified by the Supreme Court. This is particularly urgent considering the spread of misinformation and misleading information on the law following the Supreme Court judgment which continues to circulate widely.

Phillipson and Unions for Shitting on Women:

🤭😂🤣😱🤣😭😂👊

We are at your disposal to advise on any aspect of the Code if that would help to speed its progress. I note that the Office for Equality and Opportunity (OEO) requested on 9 October sight of additional information to help inform Ministers’ consideration of the draft Code, including our Equality Impact Assessment. We provided this information to OEO on 13 October. I would consequently welcome a meeting with you on the Government’s next steps ahead of laying the draft Code before Parliament. Our officials have reached out to your office with a request to arrange this.

Phillipson and Civil Service:

🙉🙈🙊🐒🐒🐒🤭👊

In addition, as outlined above, the Equality Act 2006 stipulates that the Secretary of State may revoke a code issued under the Act at the request of the Commission, by order.

Phillipson:

🥱

Given that the published version of the (2011) Code currently contains analysis of the Equality Act 2010 which has been shown to be incorrect by the Supreme Court, the EHRC consequently requests that you revoke the current code as soon as possible now that Parliament has returned, so that courts, tribunals and duty bearers are clear that it is no longer to be relied on. This will also mean that we are no longer in a position of promoting an inaccurate analysis while simultaneously seeking to promote and ensure compliance with the correct understanding of the law. Of course, uncertainty for duty-bearers will be reduced significantly once the new draft Code is laid in Parliament.

Phillipson:

🤷‍♀️

We look forward to hearing from you on the above matters.
Yours sincerely,
Baroness Kishwer Falkner
Chairwoman
Equality and Human Rights Commission

Civil Service:

👹👺

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/our-work/advising-parliament-and-governments/our-letter-minister-women-and-equalities-about

---

And doesn't she have the option to send the guidance back if she thinks it isn't lawful?

I got lazy and asked Grok:

If the Secretary of State considers that a Draft Code of Practice submitted by the EHRC for approval is unlawful, what course of action should be taken?

Grok answered:

The Secretary of State must refuse approval and provide the EHRC with written reasons for not approving the draft (Equality Act 2006, s.14(7)(b)).

If the draft is considered unlawful, that would form part of the reasons.
No further statutory action is specified.

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/3/section/14