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

So Bridget taking soooo long to "clarify" the guidance, in order to ensure that certain subsections are as clear as mud.

Thanks Bridge, maybe won't be name changing as soon as I thought!

Oh they're going to love that. Does that mean they'll be eligible for PIP?

Yes, hopefully. I think I understand that.
...What could possibly go wrong?😬

I was thinking similar

Who has used the term “chairwoman” since 1989?

Well, if it wasn't their intention, it's doing a very good imitation of it!

What is this? If someone says I don’t have any proof of ID then what?

Was it their intention to create so much confusion and lack of clarity in order to build in delays and retain the status quo, i.e that every case has to go to court and then onto the appeal court and no-one has a clue what's happening?

The Independent's take:

Phillipson says trans people are still protected

Hopefully everyone will see sense and have employment T&Cs and also service provision agreements that require employees / users of a service to use designated spaces according to sex and/or mixed sex options. So then the onus is on the individual not to break those rules deliberately and they can be sanctioned if they do break the rules just as they can be sanctioned for breaching any other T&Cs e.g. exhibiting antisocial behaviour (which is what using wrong sex spaces is).

I shall be interested in how we that is you experts think it will affect the Hampstead Ponds muddle.

Surely in terms of what has happened in the past, and the number of organisations that fell victim to Stonewall "guidelines" there needs to be some directive that makes it clear it isn't dependent on service providers enforcing this right to same sex services, but people who try to decieve their way into same sex services that is not their sex, they would be liable to be prosecuted for false representation.

I doubt Labour would do this, but this is the reality because for so long Stonewall law was pushed as the law.

The underlying problem being other rules which allow sex markers to be changed eg on birth certificates.

Hmmm. The guidance is referring to the transwoman as ‘she’.

Hundreds of pages to address the fact that women shouldn’t have to undress in front of men, etc.

Isn't that basically the result in LS vs NHS - that having mixed sex by stealth / NHS trans policy was discriminatory against women not least because so many women would be excluded because of it. I seem to recall they actually quantified the numbers? The claimant had both pcs of sex and religion.

In the public sector for the vast majority it'll never be proportionate to get rid of single sex spaces (truly single sex) because of the extremely large number of people (women - 51% of the population plus those holding a belief that means they need single sex) who will always need single sex.

Therefore, it is unlikely to be proportionate or practical to ask for further evidence of a person’s sex. In such circumstances, it is likely to be necessary to weigh up the relevant factors to decide whether to exclude the individual from the service or association or to permit them to continue to access it.

Placing the burden on the service provider to say yes or no? How many are going to do that with an angry, aggressive, large male in front of them?

They'll just cave, admit them, and force the burden onto women, who will have to take legal action.

Am I reading this correctly?

Presumably that it will be based on birth sex and the Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that within the Act sex is biological.

Not knowing of having any idea of who Pete the Plumer is, but assuming he identifies as female, he would be entitled to make a complaint based on his gender reassingment (assuming he can show this as a fact - not a fleeting fancy).

So if he has been a sexist shit a woman could complain that that it was discrimination on the basis of sex.

It seems to be saying we don’t know you figure it out.

adding examples

13.150 Group counselling sessions are provided for female survivors of domestic violence. The service provider excludes a trans man from the sessions
because they consider he is likely to be perceived as a man and the service
provider is concerned that women service users could reasonably be
worried or distressed by the presence of someone they perceive to be a man
using the service.

The service provider’s decision to exclude the trans man from the service
could amount to direct gender reassignment discrimination because he
has been treated less favourably than a woman without the protected
characteristic of gender reassignment. However, in this situation the service
provider is likely to be able to rely on the exception from liability explained
in paragraph 13.145, because the decision to exclude the trans man was
proportionate.

Example
13.151 A trans man attends a gym frequently and uses the women’s changing
room, consistent with his sex. If the gym owner decides that he can no
longer use the women’s changing room and there is no other changing room
he can use, this may be a disproportionate decision. If it is disproportionate,
the gym owner will not be able to rely on the exception for gender
reassignment discrimination (schedule 3, paragraph 28). The trans man will
be able to bring a complaint of direct gender reassignment discrimination,
because he has been treated less favourably than a woman who does not
have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

13.152 If the nature of a service means that it is only, or generally, used by women or by men, this does not mean that it is necessarily a separate or single-sex service under the Act. A service like this does not need to operate according
to the rules and principles described in paragraphs 13.99 to 13.151. However,
the Act (schedule 3, paragraph 30) contains a different exception which
means that, in services of this sort, it will not be unlawful discrimination if
the service provider refuses to serve a person of the opposite sex, if it would
be impracticable to provide the service to that person. The service provider
can also refuse to adjust the way in which the service is provided to meet the
needs of a person of the opposite sex. This exception applies to all protected
characteristics in the Act, not just sex.

Example

13.153 A hospital provides an Obstetrics and Gynaecology (OBGYN) outpatient
service. Only women and trans men need to use the service. The hospital
provides the service to women and trans men in a way which preserves
all users’ privacy and dignity. Where that is the case, it is unlikely to be
proportionate to exclude a trans man because of objections from female
service users.

The outpatient service does not offer any treatment which is suitable for a
man or a trans woman and therefore can refuse to treat them. The hospital
can also refuse to adjust the way in which it provides the service.

Thank you for that, will be useful in future.

Being discussed now on BBC PM with, so far, the dreadful trans ally, Evan Davis being quite low key.

Didn't hear the whole segment but the woman presenting the info said (because he asked) that trans women should not use women's toilets.

Just saying this as when has this ever been said on the BBC by a BBC presenter!

Yes, I'm confused about this, too.