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

My MP has come out to say they will be working with colleagues to challenge the EA. Initially they complained about the “unworkable” guidance but swiftly changed tack to say they weren’t undermining the EHRC and it’s the underlying law which is the problem… Im hoping the reality of what they are proposing starts to dawn - as they’d be looking to put in place what Australia seems to be about to reverse…. I hope they shut up and get back in their box

This is the process to try to block the code using what is called a Fatal Prayer Motion. Near impossible to pull off. If they actually try which is uncertain they will:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02569/

The Lib Dems may have an opposition day which they could have a prayer motion debate on. They might just posture and do nothing though because a debate would be awkward.

See Lib Dem thread for more:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5536296-ed-davey-says-the-ehrc-code-has-failed-in-its-objective-and-calls-for-post-legislative-scrutiny-of-the-gra-ea-presumably-to-legally-allow-blokes-in-the-ladies?

Thank you.

Parliament has been in recess since the code was laid so there has been no opportunity for any MP to do anything.

It will all kick off again tomorrow.

I’ve lost track of the state of play - due to all the posturing.

Has an MP actually called for a debate or raised a motion?

My understanding is that it will automatically go through if not. I’m not well versed in these things so even if nothing has been tabled/ requested, perhaps this is usually done later in the 40 day period🤷‍♀️

However annoying it may be, women are going to have to fight and speak up, our battle isn't won just because the law has been clarified.

I agree 100%. The law is not a magic spell that makes people behave differently.

The majority of "duty bearers" under the Equality Act 2010 show no sign of spontaneously deciding to respect women's legal rights.

Stonewall easily persuaded them to "go above and beyond the law" (break the law) because they did not give a second thought about how it would affect women and girls and how they would feel about it.

That made it very clear that we were never on a level playing field: "equality" was just as much a "legal fiction" as people being able to change sex. The failure of organisations to react promptly to clarification of the law shows that things have not changed.

If anything, things are worse culturally, if not legally. The norm was entrenched that women would politely give way, that they would tolerate having to share intimate spaces with strange men. At the extremes: to get naked with them in changing rooms and ignore their eyes, comments and erections without complaint; to be locked up in cells with violent sex offenders and paedophiles.

We have to turn around decades of profound disrespect for women and girls. A generation has grown up conditioned to find it normal and acceptable that women and girls must surrender to the desires of delusional men and boys. Some are aware that this also allows sexual perverts to use women and girls as masturbatory fodder. They know that those in charge are content, or pleased, to enable their exploitation as free range porn objects.

It is not just in this area that the legal fiction of equality has been demonstrated. The institutional enablers of mass child rape and torture by brown-skinned grooming gangs sacrificed thousands of girls on the altars of anti-racism and "community cohesion".

The law does not stop people doing bad things, or dangerous things like driving at 60 through a 20 mile zone. Law enforcement and social mores do.

We have not got anywhere near the point where most people in positions of authority would not dream of forcing women and girls to share toilets and changing rooms with men and boys. They are not ashamed to be knowingly breaking the law. They are not afraid of societal disapproval. Some of them even make it very obvious when they flout the law that they consider themselves to be potential martyrs in the just fight for "trans rights".

The only way any of the above will stop is by being threatened with legal action or actual legal action. Then more people will fall in line and very gradually the social contract will be restored. In the meantime, the fact that we have got the law on our side counts for nothing unless we ensure that the law is enforced.

IMHO the next part of the battle is going to include a fight against organisations that think they can get away with taking the cheap option and making all services "gender neutral", ie. mixed sex.

No I haven't. The question i was answering was not about a civil case of not providing lawful spaces, it was about prosecuting a man for being in a female only space, which needs a complainant.

However those civil cases you quoted also required women to have complained, they didn't happen spontaneously.

However annoying it may be, women are going to have to fight and speak up, our battle isn't won just because the law has been clarified. I'm particularly annoyed that the sports changes have not been applied to the lower levels in most sports, only the elite ones.

Of course hostile environments are being created but that wasn't the question i was answering. The question i was answering was dealing with prosecuting a man for harassment, which needs somebody to make a complaint about his specific action on the day.

S different type of club but
This one will do it

I don't think we’ll be listened to though

bbc One giant boys' club?
Why Westminster can still feel like a man's world
Published14 February 2026

By
Laura Kuenssberg
Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg

Is there a boys' club in politics? I ask a smart, tough, very experienced woman who has worked at the highest level of government.
"Yes," comes the answer - without a second's hesitation. "The end."
Yes, many more women than ever have taken up perches on the green benches - but that's not the same as having access to the inner sanctum where decisions are made.
Yes, there are many more women working at senior levels in Whitehall - and all the main parties have made big efforts to get more women into parliament. But that's not the same as being listened to.
And yes, as part of Sir Keir Starmer's efforts to prop up his administration, three senior men have used the exit – the boss of the civil service, his chief of staff, and his head of communications, to be replaced, at least in part, by women.
But this week, a serving member of the cabinet, Lisa Nandy, suggested Labour had been operating as a "boys' club" and went on to complain "some of the briefings have absolutely been dripping with misogyny".
Don't just casually ignore one of Labour's most senior politicians suggesting - quite openly - that a clique of men have had too much sway in government, and some of them have used woman-hating as a political tool.’

Then we need to position ourselves there - take up position on all of the barstools and stand 3 deep at the bar. They'll not know what to do with themselves 😂

Exactly
and of course
they aren’t changing
they'll be drinking at the bar 🤣🤣

No
Employers and providers are creating hostile environments should they allow certain spaces to be mixed sex
We can therefore prosecute them

We do not in doing so have to prove individual harassment. That has already been defined in law as
creating a hostile environment

I’ve made it clear in previous posts

We'd br harassing them simply by being in their space if that space is deemed a single sex space.

They prove it simply by saying that you are harassing them, that's kind of the point.

Harassment has to have a victim who will stand up and say "I'm a victim of harassment".

There is no law of creating a hostile environment without named victims, is there?

I think what women are along for is a new law making it illegal for a man to enter a female only space. I don't think that is a criminal act at present.

And we are saying as have judges in previous cases that men in an all women environment such as changing rooms is in itself creating a hostile environment

All the women do not and should not be canvassed to make this assessment

If a person creates a hostile environment ( in accordance with the definition ) crosses the line into unlawful sexual or sex-related harassment

Sometimes we have to read between the lines and cross reference all the information from many sources. Legal jargon isn’t always straightforward

We should all rock up at the Men’s Clubs and enter
We aren’t harassing anyone unless they can prove it

No i didn't say that.

I responded to someone saying men should be charged with harassment for entering a female space. I pointed out that for charges to happen there has to be a complainant.

And that even if there were women in the space before the man went in, there wouldn't necessarily be a complainant because there are plenty of women, some who have written on this forum, (I am not one of them) who are happy to allow trans people in female spaces.

If women lie down and do Nothing No one will be charged
That's not rocket science
The same goes for most offences

Definition of Harassment: Under Section 26 of the Equality Act, harassment occurs when someone engages in unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic (like sex) that has the purpose or effect of violating an individual's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. 1, 2, 3]
When Does it Become Harassment?

Unwanted Conduct: Because women have a reasonable expectation of privacy and a right to male-free spaces in sex designated areas, a biological male simply entering and remaining there is usually "unwanted conduct". 1, 2]

Hostile Environment: If the presence is intimidating it clearly crosses the line into unlawful sexual or sex-related harassment. 1]
Liability for Businesses and Employers
Workplace Rules: The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 strictly mandate that employers provide completely separate changing facilities for male and female employees. 1]
Employer Responsibility: Employment tribunals have ruled that forcing female staff to share a communal changing area with a biological male (regardless of their gender identity) can amount to both unlawful harassment and indirect sex discrimination against the female employees. 1, 2]
Summary
While simply being in the wrong room by accident may not lead to a formal harassment charge, a man intentionally using a women's changing room generally breaches the lawful single-sex exemptions relied on for women's privacy and dignity. If the presence causes fear, violates dignity, or is part of a company policy forcing women to share, it can be legally challenged as harassment or discrimination.’

( so shops like M&S can be challenged for a policy in violation )

It is unreasonable to expect all women to declare they would feel harassed
It is unreasonable to question women before they go into a changing facility if a man is in their
It is unreasonable to expect women to wait outside for the man to leave

It is
perfectly reasonable and
within the law
to provide men and women with their own spaces

As a pp has noted in previous cases it has been stated by judges the presence if a man in a women only space violates womens sex based rights.