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

Extraordinary cartoon in The Guardian

The asymmetry when considering the negative impacts is stark.

I believe Ben Cooper has pointed out the discrimination that lies in male people’s mental health being considered when they assess whether that male prisoner get put into a female prison whereas they don’t give as much consideration to female mental health.

I agree. I guess I'm derailing because this kind of argument pisses me off so much! It's like taking all the mental health problems associated with "trans" and blaming them on "minority stress" - we wouldn't have mental health problems if only everyone else thought we were the sex we say we are or at least pretended that we were. And our bladders and genitals wouldn't be fucked up if only we could all have the bogs we want and never mind what we did to ourselves.

Just no.

Anyway, side issue. As you were!

edit

sorry, should have read: I agree that I don't think I would like to try to make a case of "abuse" stick in court,

Also, according to a "Disabled Trans member of DR UK staff":
"Trans people are developing debilitating conditions and bladder problems from being unable to use public bathrooms for fear of harassment."

Is that more than they are developing by taking hormones which lead to genital atrophy and incontinence? Or having surgeries which mess up their elimination functions?

I agree that I don't think I would like to make a case of "abuse" stick in court, however, I think we may need to look at it a slightly different way.

I think we need to remember that it is the space which is by law single-sex, and that there are valid reasons for that ( or it wouldn't be a single-sex space in the first place). If, as I think is correct ( and others have pointed out on here), it is the provider who is liable in these scenarios, then allowing a man, of any persuasion, into such a space could constitute harassment of women, present or future, in and of itself. Because women by law are allowed to expect that the space will always be free from men.

I don't think it matters in law if some women already in the space don't care that a man is there/has just walked in; the man being there has now prevented other women (some of whom, for religious reasons cannot used mixed-sex spaces) from using that single -sex space.

I'm fairly sure that the women who do/did not consent would then be able to take legal action against the provider for harassment.

It’s different in toilets. If you look at the Sexual Offences Act (2003) there’s a possibility he may get a criminal record. Toilets are such vulnerable places there’s a separate section on them and then there’s the first part of the voyeurism section.

I think now the EHRC has said the washroom section is private to women, there needs to be more clarity on what constitutes ‘sexual gratification’. Certainly some of the photos of men in women’s toilets on the internet look like they are sexual. If there’s a woman that feels distress and doesn’t want him there, surely this applies:

67
Voyeurism
[F1 (1)
A person commits an offence if
for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and
(b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67

Any lawyers on here?

And any man entering a women's single sex space is abusing them.

It's not that clear cut though. If the women who are in there before the man goes in are all happy to have him there, and some women are, then at that moment he isn't harassing anyone.

The furthest that argument could go is that his presence is potentially harassing other women who might want to be in there, but that's never going to stick as a charge.

Yep. And as pp said, hardly any examples of sex based rights around “trans” when it was the reason the guidelines were amended.

Not just due to natural aging either. As people who have been on puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones and who have had "gender affirming surgery" age, they are disproportionately likely to have mobility problems, eg. due to osteoporosis and/or cardiac issues, and medical complications, eg. urinary incontinence.

As for the present, according to Disability Rights UK, "Around half of Trans people are also Disabled." (no reference cited but there is research support for this claim).

Disability Rights UK opposes the UK Supreme Court ruling on ‘biological sex’
17 April 2025
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/disability-rights-uk-opposes-uk-supreme-court-ruling-%E2%80%98biological-sex%E2%80%99

If that is true then up to 50% might already be using Accessible Toilets because of a disability, ie. rather than because they are trans. In which case the additional pressure on those facilities will not be as severe as it would be if all or most people with the POC of GR were able bodied.

Also, according to a "Disabled Trans member of DR UK staff":

"Trans people are developing debilitating conditions and bladder problems from being unable to use public bathrooms for fear of harassment."

Trans and Disability Justice: How Are Our Struggles Linked?
17 April 2025
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/trans-and-disability-justice-how-are-our-struggles-linked

Presumably the author would therefore welcome the fact that the Code of Practice includes a suggested scenario at 13.124 where a service provider pushed for space and funding "extends the use of the accessible toilet with baby changing facility so it can also be used as a mixed-sex toilet for anybody who does not wish to use the toilet for their sex.", ie. because this would alleviate fear of harassment?

Disability Rights UK has not yet published a response to the Code of Practice so we will have to wait and see. However, as DR UK "opposed" the Supreme Court Ruling I doubt that they are going to be over the moon with the Code of Practice.

ps. Estimates of proportion of "trans people" (adults) who have a disability or long-term medical condition - courtesy of Grok.

Around 40-50% of trans people in the UK report disability or long-term conditions, higher than general population rates (~20-25%).

Evidence summary:

• Scottish data: 43.6% of trans individuals report disability.
• UK GP Patient Survey (2021): Trans/non-binary adults show elevated long-term conditions (e.g., mental health, learning disabilities, autism) vs. general population.
• Other UK surveys: Self-reported disability in trans groups often 33-45%+.

Disability Rights UK claim aligns with US data (~52% for trans) and UK patterns, but exact UK-wide figure lacks comprehensive census cross-tab (ONS has gender identity by disability datasets, limited published overlap).

References:

• https://www.gov.scot/publications/evidence-review-inequalities-challenges-experienced-disabled-people-scotland/ (43.6%)
• https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/gp-survey-reveals-health-and-healthcare-inequalities-of-trans-and-non-binary-adults
• https://transactual.org.uk/blog/2023/10/19/disabled-trans-and-accessing-welsh-healthcare/ (US 52% reference)
• ONS Census datasets: www.ons.gov.uk/datasets/RM036

Uncertainties: Self-reported data; definitions of disability vary; trans population small (~0.5%); potential selection biases in surveys. No single definitive UK statistic.

I think given very recent information published about how women's refuges are closing, the number of women waiting for a refuge bed space, that this isn't about empire building. This is just trying to survive.

Every year women's aid refugees are closing for no other reason than lack of funding, and / or funders thinking a refuge for women isn't important.

Nothing to do with trans, just good old fashioned men's rights in action in positions or power / source of money.

But isn't it also true to say that the more money a charity has, the more it can build its empire, employ more staff, etc etc? Surely there's plenty of current examples.

Agreed. I did note the emphasis on funding, as it should be. Charities and other support organizations used to focus on money, money, and money. I used to do voluntary work for various charities, in various roles, and all they wanted to talk to me about was how I could increase their funding. Who can we tap? Who do we sit next to at this dinner, so we can hit them up for cash?

No rainbow, omnicause, touchy feely feelz crap. Just money. So I'm glad to see the emphasis. I hope more of them will turn that way. The more money a charity has, the more it can help everyone, including trans people if they need it.

I'd be interested to know @sistersheal 's opinion on this, since as far as I understand it, you allow masculine, male passing trans-identified women to attend your women's rape crisis service. Do you think you will continue with this position in light of the ability to exclude them?

Women’s Aid statement on the laying of the EHRC Code of Practice on the Equality Act

I wont editorialise by posting extracts. Can be read in full at https://womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-statement-on-the-laying-of-the-ehrc-code-of-practice-on-the-equality-act/

This is WAFE ie Women's Aid Federation England

Rachel Johnson LBC with guest Sharron Davies now

(Have to admire the work that SM have done on this in a short period fo time. 2 fairly length but informative press releases in 2 days.)

And this. Always impressive and clear.

I was just coming to post about this update from Sex Matters as I wanted to ask:

Does this mean in fact that the EHRC were not consultated on this and the OEO just added it.

If they did that just illustrates how under hand they are being.

I suspect they did, and this is just an alternative route to get trans people somehow defined as a sex so that in terms of the EA they have this additional protection, and not bother with the GRA process.

The back door to self identification.

And again the explanation as to why it is needed is because it just isn't fair on trans people to have to reveal their birth sex.

Whereas of course, they create the problem by not being honest and observing the law which says sex is biological.

They just aren't going to give in are they.

Its all about them.

Never about the fact that the court ruling was about how trans intrusion was discriminatory towards women trying to preserve their sx based rights.

They just aren't going to give in, are they?

(Have to admire the work that SM have done on this in a short period fo time. 2 fairly length but informative press releases in 2 days.)

I suppose also as our population ages, as it does in many countries, the proportion of wheelchair users is also likely to increase in the future?

@MarieDeGournay
Marie, have you seen this yet?