EHRC Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations has been laid - here is the Code itself

Ministers privately expect the guidance to face continued legal challenges once it comes into force.

From which faction are the ministers expecting legal challenges? It would be interesting to know who they expect to be dissatisfied with the guidance.

The Times response:

The document, drawn up by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, was updated after last year’s Supreme Court ruling that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex.

An initial version, revealed by The Times in November, was submitted to ministers last year but was sent back to the regulator to add more examples.

The final version includes stronger references to protecting the dignity and safety of trans people, new sections on discrimination protections, and more limited circumstances in which trans people could be excluded than the original document put forward.

A government source insisted that any changes from the original submission were not designed to water down the guidance, but to ensure that it could withstand legal scrutiny and work in practice.

They said that ministers had pushed the EHRC to carry out a full consultation rather than attempt to “fast-track” the guidance after the judgment and criticised Baroness Falkner, the EHRC’s previous chair.
They said that the “grandstanding of the previous EHRC leadership made this process harder than it needed to be: if time had been taken in the preparation, this could have been delivered sooner” and added: “The government had to battle to get the EHRC to run a proper consultation rather than a fast-tracked version — a shorter consultation could have made successful legal challenge more likely.

“Changes in the initial update were not made at the behest of government, they were to make the guidance clearer following engagement with government and others — the original draft was rushed by the previous leadership of the EHRC and needed improving, leading to further delay.”

Ministers privately expect the guidance to face continued legal challenges once it comes into force.

Extracts only - full article https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/single-sex-spaces-biological-sex-transgender-ppfcxx3qx and also at https://archive.is/BQT5e

Bold is my emphasis.

Yes, the falsified documentation thing is a total farce. If (as is acknowledged in law and in the guidance) there are any situations at all where sex matters and exclusion by sex is appropriate, then two things follow:
One is that if protection is deemed necessary in the first place, there are likely to be attempts to breach it.
So the second is that you have to be able to challenge and demand proof.
Asking people to undress or have medical exams will in most cases be unfeasible overkill, so ID documentation is the obvious way to go (as is done for proof of age).
Lack of any reliable UK sex ID is something that needs to be rectified sooner rather than later.

FWS will become a dead letter. What protections will anyone have if EA is repealed? We do not want this outcome.

There is no type of official record or document in the UK which provides reliable evidence of sex. For example, sex on passports and driving licences may be changed with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), and birth certificates may reflect the acquired gender of someone who has a GRC.

The Gender Recognition Act must be repealed to prevent this farce of falsified birth certificates.

Unimpressed that transmen have been thrown under the bus. There should be a duty for SSS to provision something for trans-identified women.

I would argue that gender identity, or the lack of it, is more so special category data. It's a philosophical belief, not a fact, and philosophical beliefs get special category data protection.

If the Police are investigating an allegation that a patient on a Ward has raped someone (rape rather than Sexual Assault by Penetration) then they should ask whether any patients are in possession of a penis. The NHS does not need to disclose anything about the patient's sex in order to answer that question.

In Scotland, the Sexual Offences legislation has been amended so that a "penis" may belong to either a male or a female, so it would be even more pertinent to avoid asking about "sex" and ask instead about organ needed, in law, to commit rape:

Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009
Part 1
Rape etc.
Rape

(4) In this Act—

• “penis” includes a surgically constructed penis if it forms part of A, having been created in the course of surgical treatment, and
• “vagina” includes—

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/part/1

However, there are whole list of exceptions in Section 22 of the GRA 2004 wrt the prohibition on disclosing whether someone has applied for a GRC, which is the only thing that those lying NHS staff might have been misguidedly relying on when they told the police that there were no male patients on the ward:

Gender Recognition Act 2004
22 Prohibition on disclosure of information

(4) But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—
(a) the information does not enable that person to be identified,
(b) that person has agreed to the disclosure of the information,
(c) the information is protected information by virtue of subsection (2)(b) and the person by whom the disclosure is made does not know or believe that a full gender recognition certificate has been issued,
(d) the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal,
(e) the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,
(f) the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,
(g) the disclosure is made to the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General for Scotland or the Registrar General for Northern Ireland,
(h) the disclosure is made for the purposes of the social security system or a pension scheme,
(i) the disclosure is in accordance with provision made by an order under subsection (5), or
(j) the disclosure is in accordance with any provision of, or made by virtue of, an enactment other than this section.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

Given the notoriety of that case and the awful consequences for the woman, whose rape was eventually confirmed as it had been captured on CCTV, this would have been a very helpful example to include in the Code of Practice to provide "clarity".

I would bet my bottom dollar that it is not in there.

Which definitely has me "frothing" at this cloth-eared quote from "a source close to the minister" in the Telegraph article:

"A source close to the minister said: “Bridget believes firmly in the importance of protecting single sex spaces for women, but this can be done in a way that ensures dignity for trans people too: it is not an either-or.

“Bridget has ignored the frothing on both sides of the culture war and encouraged EHRC to focus on what matters: the dignity of everyone in our country. She will take no lectures on the rights of women just as she will never punch down on any minority.”

If that truly reflects her attitude then I hope and expect that her arrogance will see her unseated at the next election.

From the Good Law Project's response:

Forcing trans people to use third spaces creates stigma, and risks outing them. A trans woman who goes to the pub with the rest of her female friend group would have to explain why she cannot go into the women’s toilets with them.

Do the GLP live in a world without senses or instinct? No group of women would genuinely believe that a TW who they knew enough to be friends with was actually female.

For all its faults, it's a massive improvement on the 2011 stat code which remains in force until this one commences.

What’s more what does “visually very male” convey? That we genuinely can’t tell? Women can tell whether a man or a woman has entered the room.

I set the bar very low for this and Phillipson still managed to limbo under it.

To be fair, most people will just read the headlines and not the details. Its clearly stated sex means sex and whilst you can't directly ask, you should be able to challenge. It slides in the 'passing' challenge - TRA's are convinced they 'pass' and therefore will keep trying: women will spot it and continue to swerve. At least now, we can name it, complain about it and have it taken seriously. Women in France and Australia cannot even do that.

How can it ever be proportional to exclude a woman from a service provided for women on the basis of her appearance? So we’re talking about specialist services for women who have experienced rape, or mental ill health - these women have a right to these services, where are they supposed to go?

Here I was thinking I was just being thick today, because I couldn't understand a word of it! I guess I'd better start saving up for my first legal action, because I am definitely not a "kind" sort of person, and I do speak my mind.

I really don't envy you, but we've got to do what's necessary.

Please tell me we are not the only ones who have noticed this! (I'm not on social media)
Something has to be done

'Gender-affected activity' is the language used in the EA:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/195

How will this work for women who need same-sex care at home or in hospital? Are we not allowed to ask?

It’s a nothing. Whilst BP is patting herself on the back. Bizarrely arrogant and clueless.

I can’t believe people still rate them.

How does this now work with not admitting trans-identified females into rape crisis centres if her "masculine " traits might be too upsetting for the other women?

I simply will not believe that someone at the centre would not ask her before allowing her inside. But, then, I suppose staff would be less at risk if getting punched in the face in that scenario!

This guidance so far is making a mockery of the law.

‘Frothing’ are they on mn a lot? Fuck em. That statement is so bad I hope they’re voted to oblivion.