Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

386 replies

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 21/05/2026 16:37

Written Statement made by: Secretary of State for Education and Minister for
Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson) on 21 May 2026:

https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/105423/Pdf?subType=Standard

I have approved the draft Code submitted on 4 September 2025 and as updated by the EHRC in April 2026 following engagement with government and their consideration of consultation responses and further legal analysis.
The current Code was produced in 2011 and there have been significant developments since then, including the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland, resulting in the EHRC wanting to update the Code.
Following last year’s Supreme Court ruling, the draft Code’s content on sex and gender reassignment has changed substantially from the 2011 version. The ruling made it clear that sex means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and that trans people are still protected by the Act under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’.

The Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations itself:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026

Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, 2026

The Equality and Human Rights Commission's draft updated Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026

OP posts:
Thread gallery
32
Helleofabore · 21/05/2026 17:49

By the way, I am copying and pasting for anyone who doesn't want to go through the pdf document.

BUT also for future finding the information and ease of copying to answer questions or support the usual arguments.

Helleofabore · 21/05/2026 17:47

p 267

Separate or single-sex services – gender reassignment

13.142 If a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) is considering providing a separate or single-sex service, they should consider their approach to trans people’s use of the service.

13.143 The impact of separate or single-sex services on trans people should be
considered when the service provider is deciding whether it is justified to have
a separate or single-sex service. Read paragraphs 13.120 to 13.133 for further
information on this.

13.144 If a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) decides to have a separate or single-sex service and allows trans people to use the service intended for the opposite sex, the service will no longer be a separate or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). It is also very likely to amount to unlawful discrimination against others (read paragraph 13.131). It is possible to offer a mixed-sex service alongside a single-sex service. A mixed-sex service must be open to all service users.

13.145 If it is justified to provide a separate or single-sex service, then it will not be unlawful discrimination because of gender reassignment to prevent, limit
or modify trans people’s access to the service for their own sex, as long as
doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (schedule 3,
paragraph 28).

13.146 For example, a trans man might be excluded from the women-only service if the service provider decides that, because he presents as a man, other service users could reasonably object to his presence, and excluding him is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

13.147 A legitimate aim for excluding a trans person from a separate or single-sex service for their own sex might be to prevent discomfort or distress for other
service users. Service providers should consider whether other service users
could reasonably object because they are worried about sharing a single or
separate-sex service with someone who appears to be of the opposite sex.
That will depend on all the circumstances, including the nature of the service
in question and the extent to which the trans person presents as the opposite
sex. For this reason, a service provider (including a person providing a service
in the exercise of public functions) should only consider doing this on a case-
by-case basis.

13.148 The service provider should consider whether there is a suitable alternative service for the trans person to use. In the case of services which are
necessary for everybody, such as toilets, it is very unlikely to be proportionate
to put a trans person in a position where there is no service that they are
allowed to use.

13.149 If the service provider does not act proportionately, this is very likely to
amount to direct or indirect discrimination because of gender reassignment
(section 13 and section 19

Helleofabore · 21/05/2026 17:44

Competitive sport – gender reassignment

13.73 Any sex-based rules or arrangements relating to participation in a gender-
affected activity (read paragraph 13.65) should be applied on the basis of
biological sex. Therefore, trans people should not be included in single-sex or
separate-sex competitions for the sex with which they identify. They should
also not be treated as that sex for the purposes of any other sex-based rules
or arrangements that relate to participation. The law on the exception for
sex discrimination in relation to gender-affected activities in section 195,
paragraph 1 is not settled (read paragraph 13.66). However, it is unlikely to
permit rules or arrangements that treat trans people as the sex with which
they identify, and participants or prospective participants may bring claims of
direct or indirect sex discrimination about such rules or arrangements.

Example
13.74 An athletics club chooses to organise a competitive running event that includes women and trans women. Running is a gender-affected activity. A woman who participates may be able to bring a claim for indirect sex discrimination due to the provider’s decision to include trans women placing her at a particular disadvantage. Men who are excluded from the event may also be able to bring a claim for direct discrimination based on their exclusion. This is because the exception for sex discrimination in section 195, paragraph 1 may not apply if the club chooses to include trans women and exclude men.

13.75 In addition, it may be lawful to exclude some trans people or treat them
differently from other members of their own sex in relation to participation
in a gender-affected activity, when necessary for reasons of safety or fair
competition. If it is not necessary for these reasons, it is likely to be unlawful
to exclude trans people from participating in the same way as members of
their own sex.

13.76 Consequently, if a person is organising single-sex or separate-sex events
for men and women, or other events with sex-based rules in relation to
participation, in a gender-affected activity, they should consider their approach
to trans competitors’ access to the service.

13.77 Direct gender reassignment discrimination can occur if a policy or decision to restrict participation of trans people is made on the grounds of gender reassignment. This would be the case, for example, if a trans man is excluded from a women’s event because of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Read Chapter 2 for more information on the meaning of gender reassignment.

13.78 Indirect gender reassignment discrimination can occur if a provision, criterion or practice puts trans people (including the individual trans person concerned) at a particular disadvantage compared to people who are not trans and it cannot be justified. This might be the case, for example, if a rule that excludes people who have received certain hormone treatment is more likely to result in the exclusion of trans people than others, unless that rule can be justified. If such a rule is necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition, it is likely to be justified.

13.79 In addition, in the context of a gender-affected activity, the Act provides
an exception to a claim of gender reassignment discrimination if a person
restricts participation of a trans person and can show it is necessary to do
so for reasons of fair competition or the safety of competitors (section 195,
paragraph 2).

13.80 This exception applies to service providers and public authorities, but not to associations covered by the Act who organise competitive sporting activities
solely for members and their guests. However, associations may still adopt
general rules which prevent people from participating in a sporting activity,
for example because they have received certain hormone treatment or have
hormone levels exceeding a set limit, if this is justified for reasons of safety or
fair competition.

Example
13.81 A boxing gym runs a boxing competition for women. A trans man who
has undergone treatment with testosterone wishes to compete. The gym
declines his request because they are concerned that the treatment has had
the effect of increasing his muscle mass and strength. This is likely to be
lawful if the gym can demonstrate that there would be a genuine health and
safety risk and / or impact on fair competition if the trans man were allowed
to join the competition.

13.82 The combined effect of the exceptions relating to sex and gender
reassignment under subsections 195, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Act
may impose significant limitations on the ability of some trans people to
participate in some gender-affected activities. If the exceptions have been
properly applied, this will not be unlawful under the Act. However, this result
could constitute unlawful indirect gender reassignment discrimination unless
the overall arrangements for participation are a proportionate means of
achieving a legitimate aim. Organisers should therefore consider whether
there are additional alternative arrangements that could be made to enable
trans people to participate in the activity in question. This might include, for
example, having mixed-sex categories in addition to separate-sex categories,
or having a category in a gender-affected team activity with specified numbers
of men and women on each team, which would enable trans people to
participate as part of the specified number of members of their own sex (read
paragraphs 13.66 and 13.73).

13.83 Given the physiological differences between men and women, and the
potential impact of treatment that trans people may receive as part of the
process of transition, it will often be necessary for organisations to develop
general policies to guide and inform their decision making. Policies should be
supported by clear reasoning and an evidence base. They will often wish to
draw upon guidance from sporting authorities. Relevant factors may include:
-the extent to which there are competitive advantages arising from
sex-based physiological factors, such as physical strength, stamina
or physique
-whether such physiological factors give rise to safety risk factors, such
as those arising from physical contact between men and women
-whether medical or other interventions that trans people may have
received as part of their transition process, such as hormone treatment,
may affect fairness and / or safety
-whether there are additional or alternative arrangements that could be
made to enable trans people to participate
-whether an activity is primarily competitive, or competitive but with a
significant social and recreational purpose and whether it is a mass
participation event.

(TLDR I reckon they wanted this example I have bolded for parkrun)

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 21/05/2026 17:43

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

IwantToRetire · 21/05/2026 17:38

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/05/2026 17:22

That sounds like a sop to the TRAs. They tried to use that argument in the Edinburgh Rape Crisis tribunal. Who else cares about their sex being recorded and stored?

I dont see how given the wording of the EA and the Supreme Court ruling they can now say sex as a "special category" when it is a protected characteristic in the EA.

So data should be collected on that, and so should data be collected on those who have or are progressing to Gender Reassignment.

What a load of crap.

I wonder if that is what Baroness Falkner originally submitted.

Notsureifthiswillhelp · 21/05/2026 17:38

ProfPerformativeBewildermentOBE · 21/05/2026 17:29

Can’t seem to C&P from the Code but Example 12.68 on p220-something is quite clear that a trans woman can’t join a women’s group and isn’t being discriminated against.

Pertinent after the Aussie shitshow.

Here's the screenshot and onto the following page...

EHRC Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations has been laid - here is the Code itself
ProfPerformativeBewildermentOBE · 21/05/2026 17:29

Can’t seem to C&P from the Code but Example 12.68 on p220-something is quite clear that a trans woman can’t join a women’s group and isn’t being discriminated against.

Pertinent after the Aussie shitshow.

EasternStandard · 21/05/2026 17:28

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 21/05/2026 17:02

The main loopholes are:

  • “Balancing” language: organisations can claim they weighed women’s rights against trans inclusion and decided their current mixed-sex policy is “proportionate”.
  • “Exceptional circumstances”: the Code leaves room for case-by-case exceptions, which activist organisations may turn into routine opposite-sex access.
  • Weak enforcement detail: it says sex matters, but also says official documents do not reliably prove sex, so organisations may claim enforcement is impossible.
  • Too much discretion: providers are told to make judgements, which lets captured schools/councils hide behind “complexity”.
  • Soft language: lots of “may”, “could”, “usually”, “likely”, “good practice”, rather than hard “must”.
  • Trans impact still centred: providers are repeatedly told to consider disadvantage to excluded trans people, which can be used to minimise the rights of women and girls.

I stress I am using an LLM to analyse the very large document, but these seem like genuine loopholes

The first point still sounds like we’re stuck in proportionate land.

Is it clear enough, sounds so if you want to up to you.

CheeseChamp · 21/05/2026 17:27

Making sex special category data is going to be a nightmare situation for government data people (I work in the sector). Also just.. does this mean I can never be referred to as Mrs, Miss, madam, by a shop assistant? What if my name makes my sex obvious? Make it make sense! What a strange thing to decide to add.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/05/2026 17:22

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

That sounds like a sop to the TRAs. They tried to use that argument in the Edinburgh Rape Crisis tribunal. Who else cares about their sex being recorded and stored?

EasternStandard · 21/05/2026 17:22

Can’t read it rn will see what is said on here.

fanOfBen · 21/05/2026 17:22

Nothing on the BBC website about this as far as I can see?

Peregrina · 21/05/2026 17:21

It's all very well saying that sex data is sensitive - the vast majoirity of us can tell at a quick glance whether someone is male or female.

I can see that other areas e.g. sexual orientation can be considered sensitive.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 21/05/2026 17:21

allthingsinmoderation · 21/05/2026 17:18

I can see the loophole of organisations arguing single sex spaces are not proportionate so they wont provide them and will call them mixed sex/unisex/gender neutral.(i don't think trans people want this option,they want to access the spaces of the opposite sex)
I cant see the saying we cant be sure of someones sex is a strong argument.
I can see it could be discretionary as to wether single sex spaces are provided but i cant see how an organisation can call a space womens and include some male and be lawful. If its labelled peanut free, it must be peanut free,surely?
If the law says "must" surely thats all that matters?
I can see the impact on trans people must be considered but that cant be at the expense of single sex spaces, surely?

If they don't have single sex spaces many women and men of particular religions (including Islam) will not be able to use those services though.

I'm not saying this applies to all of that religion, but there will be plenty who will be unable to use public space without single sex provision.

The good thing is at least that they can't do 'mixed sex by stealth' - they have to be open about what they're doing and who they're excluding.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 21/05/2026 17:19

The main thing with this is, services need to stop being scared TRAs will kick up a fuss and start being scared of the loss of insurance cover and court losses they'll get if they pretend they cannot see sex. It looks like more court cases, unfortunately.

allthingsinmoderation · 21/05/2026 17:18

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 21/05/2026 17:02

The main loopholes are:

  • “Balancing” language: organisations can claim they weighed women’s rights against trans inclusion and decided their current mixed-sex policy is “proportionate”.
  • “Exceptional circumstances”: the Code leaves room for case-by-case exceptions, which activist organisations may turn into routine opposite-sex access.
  • Weak enforcement detail: it says sex matters, but also says official documents do not reliably prove sex, so organisations may claim enforcement is impossible.
  • Too much discretion: providers are told to make judgements, which lets captured schools/councils hide behind “complexity”.
  • Soft language: lots of “may”, “could”, “usually”, “likely”, “good practice”, rather than hard “must”.
  • Trans impact still centred: providers are repeatedly told to consider disadvantage to excluded trans people, which can be used to minimise the rights of women and girls.

I stress I am using an LLM to analyse the very large document, but these seem like genuine loopholes

I can see the loophole of organisations arguing single sex spaces are not proportionate so they wont provide them and will call them mixed sex/unisex/gender neutral.(i don't think trans people want this option,they want to access the spaces of the opposite sex)
I cant see the saying we cant be sure of someones sex is a strong argument.
I can see it could be discretionary as to wether single sex spaces are provided but i cant see how an organisation can call a space womens and include some male and be lawful. If its labelled peanut free, it must be peanut free,surely?
If the law says "must" surely thats all that matters?
I can see the impact on trans people must be considered but that cant be at the expense of single sex spaces, surely?

Peregrina · 21/05/2026 17:18

My guess would be that a firm like Leonardo which is bloke heavy and may have more trans identifying men than women might get away with this argument.

I cannot see how the NHS with a heavy preponderence of women workers and the odd handful of trans identifying men would possibly get away with trying this one on. But, being as captured as the NHS is, I wouldn't bet on it.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 21/05/2026 17:17

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Even though everyone can see and hear what sex someone is. This is very poor.

I'm liking that 'This includes protections for women whose menopause has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their everyday life'.

The main thing about menoopause for me, apart from the hot flushes, is being extremely pissed off if anyone wants me to lie about sex and not having the energy to piss about being a support human for other people's special identities, especially when they undermine child safeguarding.

I have enough to do being a support human for my children and trying to safeguard them from idiots and predators.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 21/05/2026 17:12

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 21/05/2026 17:11

At long last, I look forward to catching up with the 'analysis' when I return from work.
I hoping to hear good things. 🤞🙏

OP posts:
Helleofabore · 21/05/2026 17:06

page 31

Gender Recognition Certificates (GRC)

2.49 The Supreme Court in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (For Women Scotland) [2025] UKSC 16 has ruled that a GRC does not change a person’s legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment
held that ‘sex’, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ mean, respectively, biological sex, biological
woman and biological man for the purposes of the Equality Act. The judgment
uses the expression ‘biological sex’ to describe the sex of a person at birth.
The phrase ‘biological sex’ has the same meaning when used throughout this
Code. This is also referred to as ‘sex at birth’ in this Code.

2.50 This means that, in relation to the Act, a person’s sex remains their biological sex, whether they have a GRC or not. For example, a trans man with a GRC is a woman and a trans woman with a GRC is a man, for the purposes of the Act.

2.51 This Code only relates to the application of the Equality Act 2010. It does
not deal with the implications of the For Women Scotland judgment for the
application of section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to any other
legislation.

2.52 A trans person will be protected from discrimination because of gender
reassignment, whether they have a GRC or not.

2.53 A trans person will also be protected from sex discrimination whether they
have a GRC or not. They will be protected from sex discrimination that is
based on their sex at birth. They will also be protected from sex discrimination
related to their acquired gender where they suffer:
-direct discrimination by association or where this is because of their
perceived sex in their acquired gender (read about discrimination by
perception in paragraphs 4.51 to 4.53)

-indirect discrimination by association (section 19A) of the Act (read
about indirect discrimination by association in paragraphs 5.58 to 5.62)

-harassment related to sex (section 26) (read about harassment related to
sex in paragraphs 8.23 to 8.34)

WallaceinAnderland · 21/05/2026 17:06

A comparator for the purposes of showing sex discrimination will be a
person of the opposite sex.

Wait, how does Pete the plumber fit into this then?

Morecoffeewanted · 21/05/2026 17:03

There is a section that says that Gender Dysphoria is covered as a disability.

I wonder if this ' opens the door' to trans people being entitled to use disabled loos?