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

Ah, interesting - I had assumed that the 2006 Act had been subsumed into the 2010 Act and repealed in the same way that the Sex Discrimination Act and Race Relations Act were.

Well it depends what, if anything, they replace it with. The EA2010 hasn't really worked out that well for all the victims of men in women's spaces has it? Katie Dolatowski's victims for a start and the list is long....

Goodness only knows the number of women sexually assaulted in the NHS because of their mixed sex by stealth policies. They cover it up so we don't even know.

And it (correctly) points out that there are no documents that any one can produce to prove their sex. That being so is not a defect of the guidance; it's a fault of the government, and it's not wrong to point that out.

Jesus

That's the 2010 Equality Act which is the main legal protection women have against discrimination?

Another example of how Reform forming a government would be an absolute shitshow

Not necessarily. The Equality Act 2010 is the one that gets all the attention. But the EHRC is a creature of the Equality Act 2006 - a totally different statute.

Of course they may repeal both. But that's not the immediate meaning of "repeal the Equality Act".

Reform say they will repeal the Equality Act on the first day of a Reform government (Suella Braverman speech on the 17th Feb). This means that the EHRC, and all its guidance, will also be abolished.

I wonder, where does that leave somebody like the NHS staff who told a woman who was raped on a ward by a transwoman that it couldn't have happened because "there were no men on the ward". Are they going to be able to hide behind saying that sex is "sensitive information" and can't be shared?

I see the EHRC is keeping a low profile:

Latest update

On 21 May 2026, the Minister for Women and Equalities laid our updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations in Parliament.

Parliament has 40 days from the laying date to review the code. If Parliament does not disapprove the code, the UK government will set a date for it to come into force and we will publish it on our website.

You should check this page for any updates.

Once the code is in force, it will have legal status as a statutory code of practice on how service providers, public functions and associations can meet the duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.

Read the draft code on the GOV.UK website

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-services-public-functions-and-0

(Sorry bit of a side track from OP purpose.)

The EHRC were a major part of how we’ve got to this point. It’s always quite funny to see TRAs raging against them and saying they have no authority when they were quite happy to brandish previous guidance which favoured them to “prove” that women had no rights. Baroness Falkner, who at great personal cost turned the ship around, was an inspired appointment and we all owe her a debt of gratitude.

Well yes but eventually then we will get politicians who better represent the overwhelming view of the public. So the by-election could be extremely interesting.

I can't remember where on here I saw it but someone said it's about basic competence as much as women's rights and child safeguarding and I agree. Also about trust, if you claim that human biological sex is 'complicated' you're not to be trusted. It's about as basic as it gets to recognise sex matters for safety in some circumstances.

Honestly I'm hoping Pete Robert the plumber wins and I hope he makes it clear that he knows what a woman is. Most plumbers I've met do.

Maybe we'd have a better country if we just sacked all current politicians and randomly chose plumbers and people from other working class reality based jobs via lottery.

What is correctly going by the update?

What’s proportionate ie point one below?

Yes because without them defining how a law works, employers, services providers cant be sued. Or held to account as the EHRC has done to MacDonalds etc..

The idea that individuals or even campaign groups should spend their time raising endless money to hold individual court cases, when one prosecution by the EHRC makes it clear to other organisations what their obligations are.

That is the whole point.

You might as well say why have an EA.

As if good "schooling" would solve anything like that.

It's like thinking if all our politicians were schooled at Eton the country would run better.

Totally fantasy!

I agree that implementation will be the next step. And enforcement if needed.

The burden to apply the EA correctly has always been on the service provider. Nothing has changed here.

Well that scuppers Hampstead Ponds. Good.

@SingleSexSpacesInSchools thank you so
much for the other side of the debate!

Thank

Can’t wait to read the analysis by Pink News

Sex Matters have published their response to it.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/what-is-in-the-new-guidance/

What about Politics and upcoming by-election?
Reform: Will they highlight the strict parts and emphasise they support Single Sex Spaces?
Lib Dems: Long wordy spiels about support for Trans
Greens: Hypno-Boob saying they got it wrong and the Greens will change the law and over-ride the SC decision.
Conservative: Live with it and promise to change on enforcement.

But the law's the law and this guidance is a waste of time IMO.

At this particular point, I'm inclined to agree with you on this. I will keep reading and trying to understand, but as far as I am aware, the guidance cannot say anything that is unlawful according to the EA, so I think in the end we'll just have to fall back on the law.

The problem isn't the EHRC.

The problem is Labour politicians who refuse to accept the guidance from the EHRC because it challenge them as "trans allies".

You only need to remember the disgusting way the Women and Equalities Committee sneered and belittled Baroness Falkner to see what the problem is.

Sorry to say KJK totally misses the point and doesn't seem to realise it is the polticians who are causing this. And doesn't seem to recognise who has the power. (And of course the power behing the politicians - Stonewall.)

The guidelines could have been presented and past 6 months ago.

The Labour Party chose not to do it.

Running is a gender-affected activity.

This statement alone shows why it's a dogs breakfast!
Running is a sex affected activity. And as soon as we start saying sex when we mean sex instead of being coy about the word the better.

There was a use for the word gender in grammar - tables and chairs etc. in many languages have gender, but the do not have sex!

KJK said something about this about a year ago. She said something along the lines of, and I'm paraphrasing, we piss away eleventy million pounds a year on EHRC salaries and in the end no-one is going to do anything because of their guidance. They'll do it because society says 'no, we want single sex, anyone breaching that is a wrong 'un and the police need to start enforcing indecent exposure'. We're some way there I think.

Of course along with this there are the court cases which I think do shift the needle. Particularly FWS. But the law's the law and this guidance is a waste of time IMO. The main thing is public opinion which is very much sex realist, particularly among the working classes who tend to be at the pointy end of the risks and harms from pretending sex isn't real.

KJK went on to say something along the lines of what's the bloody point of the EHRC, could we not just save that taxpayers money and put it into better quality schools - specifically better safeguarding. And honestly, at this point, I'm inclined to agree.