EHRC have suubmitted updated Code of Practice to Phillipson

Fair point.

It's actually simpler to know which sex you are than whether you are over the drink drive limit. The only sure way to know you're not breaking the law re drink-driving is to consume no alcohol.

The details? Because the law doesn’t say you mustn’t drink and drive, it gives a blood alcohol limit that you must not exceed.

That’s not the same thing.

It would be simpler if it said you can’t drive within 8 hours of any alcohol consumption or something, but it is actually blood alcohol levels that are important to how much your driving is impeded.

The guidance gives us the practical understanding of what this means for amount of alcohol consumed relative to body size and time elapsed before driving.

It doesn’t change the law but it makes it easier to understand how to apply it in a practical situation.

The subject of direct and indirect discrimination against people with protected characteristics can be complicated and I think service providers have been made confused by Stonewall’s illegal advice over the past 15 years.

The best outcome would be for service providers and employers to obey the law without having to be taken to court by another poor woman having to crowd fund and stick her neck out for a load of abuse.

They are more likely to do this with correct guidance in place, and not the crappy old guidance that is legally incorrect.

Yes. It's also very simple to know what sex you are and use the appropriate services and facilities (when these are single sex).

To extend the analogy, it's as if all the pubs had grouped together and campaigned for everyone to accept that someone who has drunk 6 pints isn't really over the limit...

"How do we know that the breathalyser is working correctly?"

"How does anyone know that this person actually drank these 6 pints of alcohol? Did anyone measure the alcohol content in each pint just before it was consumed?"

Etc etc.

I’d love to know what the HSE guidelines said before Jan.

Well cynical me can see the reasoning behind letting them go guns blazing 😁

And to be honest I probably shouldn’t be questioning any of it as I’m starting to think a lot is deliberate. I just get annoyed when things don’t add up!

re Brighton; I noted that the HSE toilet guidance was updated on 26th Jan 2026.

DfE Schools guidance for staff etc dates back to 2015 as far as I can tell, but directs to HSE guidance for toilets.

The only trans related stuff I can find so far is the pregnancy guidance whereby they say it relates to trans men and non binary etc, but thereafter says expectant mothers and breastfeeding (thank god.)

BP did update the RSE guidance in line with FWS; it’s actually quoted. And that needed to get out asap for schools to panic and have time to rewrite their plans for sept.

'The equalities charity Stonewall welcomed the “constructive working” between the government and EHRC.'

Stonewall welcoming constructive working is not a good sign.

Did you let them know? They value feedback, ime

Clearly nothing….

They are the fault of BP in the sense that lots of organisations not covered by this guidance have used the lack of this guidance as a reason for not implementing the SC ruling.

For example, the Brighton school that is subject to legal action by a parent used the lack of this guidance as a reason to delay implementing the SC ruling, even though this guidance is irrelevant to schools.

So the delay in this guidance has had much wider implications than it should have.

Of course when (if??) this guidance gets approved, there's no guarantee that the blockers won't find another illogical reason to delay - although helpfully the GLP's most recent loss ensured that a High Court Judge ruled that the H&S workplace regulations must follow the same logic as the SC Equality Act ruling and mean biological sex so that closed off that option for the blockers.

no one said it was your problem, only that many idiots exist who regularly drink and drive

You e also missed out that stonewall et al have infected every CEO’s brain cell on LinkedIn

How is that my problem ?

And frankly all I have seen the drink drive guidance lead to is people (not exclusively but mainly men) play "I can have another one roulette" with the inevitable consequences for innocent people.

Not quite sure it's helping enforce the law or protect the public.

Anyway, I thought I said I was out. Must unsubscribe.

Changing room guidelines

Well I think there are a few things going on here:

One is that employers keep saying that they are waiting for the Code, even though they have had it pointed out to them that it is not relevant to their situation around changing rooms and toilets, which is covered by Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

Secondly, some activist lawyers are trying to persuade workplaces that the Sex = Biological Sex ruling only applies to the Equality Act and nowhere else. Whereas the reality is that it will inevitably apply in all UK legislation that references sex.

Thirdly, some of the Government's own departments are refusing to follow the law without 'guidance', and BP and the Govt know this and should take responsibility for not putting a stop to this

This is the HSE guidance for toilets. It’s very clear:

https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/health-safety.htm

Yes but twats do it daily.

I think it's very simple not to drink and drive. What more do I need to know ?

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are responsible for a lot that would advise employers. I think there are other depts too.

And iirc that’s the submission that was not made public in the GLP case. (GLP made Phillipsons submission public.)

Of course they can but the implication is that all those things are the fault of BP.

This government has always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. and Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia too.

Either the word "always" is meaning something different than what is generally understood to be meant, or they are using the word "protect" in a sense that means that the concept is still "protected" even when a special caste of males with magic genderfeels are allowed into the allegedly "single sex" female space, because the government has not remotely been protecting actual single-sex spaces.

This is the legislation regarding drink driving:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents/enacted

This is some guidance around drink driving:

https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/facts/information-about-alcohol/alcohol-and-the-law/drink-driving/drink-driving-and-the-legal-alcohol-limit#thelawanddrinkdrivinglimitsintheuk

Which do you think it is easier for a lay man to understand to ensure he follows the law without having to consult a legal professional?

Why can't Sex Matters look at the bigger picture?

But this code is for services not employment.

Services is just one section of the Equality Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents