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

I was thinking about the whole issue of how do you prove someone's sex in relation to use of single sex services.

If a service provider believes that the person wishing to use female facilities is a man they could bar them from using them. If that person wishes to sue for sex discrimination on the basis that they are female then they would have to prove to the court that they were female, the service provider would not need to prove they are a man. The burden of proof lies with the claimant in a civil legal case.

It just takes service providers to be brave when confronted by an obvious man wishing to use female single sex facilities.

I'm glad that we've finally got back to where we were before all this nonsense started. No, it's not perfect, in most situations there will be no one there to enforce it, but that's what we always had.

Good men stay out so that bad men stand out. That's how it always was and that's where we are coming back to now.

We've come a long way from not even being able to state the bloody obvious.

The Equalities Act 2010 does not place any obligations on people as private citizens and service users, so we still have the right to ask the carer and their employer under the The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, Section 10, 2 (c)

Dignity and respect

10.—(1) Service users must be treated with dignity and respect.

(2) Without limiting paragraph (1), the things which a registered person is required to do to comply with paragraph (1) include in particular—

(a) ensuring the privacy of the service user;

(b) supporting the autonomy, independence and involvement in the community of the service user;

(c) having due regard to any relevant protected characteristics (as defined in section 149(7) of the Equality Act 2010) of the service user.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2936/regulation/10

However, there are currently problems when organisations do not record the sex of staff and/or service users, so maintain that because of this that they are unable to provide same-sex services. They are therefore in breach of the The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, Section 10, 2 (c).

The CQC is wooly on the issue - creating a sex/gender loophole in CQC Guidance. Obviously, this is misleading and if it went to court then then it is the Legislation, not the CQC Guidance, that would be relied on. (I wonder if the CQC has been challenged on this . . . I feel a visit to "What Do They Know" and an FOI search coming on).

CQC Guidance

Regulation 10: Dignity and respect

10(1) Service users must be treated with dignity and respect.
When providing intimate or personal care, provider must make every reasonable effort to make sure that they respect people's preferences about who delivers their care and treatment, such as requesting staff of a specified gender/sex

https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-regulation/providers/regulations-service-providers-and-managers/health-social-care-act/regulation-10

This is at odds with protecting service users from sexual abuse:

Regulation 13: Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment
https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-regulation/providers/regulations-service-providers-and-managers/health-social-care-act/regulation-13

Example of what has been happening in practice:

"On 30th April 2024 the Caring about Dignity team went to parliament to present a report on their campaign for same-sex care to parliamentarians"

1) Speakers included Sam, one of our founders whose non verbal highly autistic daughter, Helen, has been denied same-sex care provision. Sam's council does not collect data on sex."

https://www.caringaboutdignity.org/our-news-and-reports/

Extracts from Sam's speech that you can download from that page:

For the last three and a half years, my husband and I have been asking our local authority to collect data on the protected characteristic of sex, not just gender. Additionally, we have been asking for a commitment from them to commission same sex services.
We believe:

• Firstly, that Helen, and all those like her, have necessary and intrinsic rights to safeguarding and dignity: her intimate care takes place behind closed doors on a 1:1 , lone working basis and she cannot bear witness
• Secondly, we believe that Helen does not have the mental capacity to choose or ‘feel’ her gender – the only thing we can fairly and truly ascertain is her biological sex
• And thirdly, we believe that Helen’s sex-based rights cannot be honoured unless the sex of all parties involved in her care is known and recorded.

Our local authority does not collect data on the sex of its disabled adults in adult social care.

Their justification for this includes (and these are direct quotes from correspondence):

• 'forcing individuals to disclose their sex assigned at birth would potentially be a violation of their human rights’
• ‘we have no intention to facilitate or support the commissioning of single sex services in the current market’

The Caring About Dignity Report from their House of Lords Event on 28 April 2024 has lots more information and references:
https://storage.ghost.io/c/3c/6e/3c6ee750-2b6c-443e-8a48-6d1261eabfa8/content/files/2024/05/Caring-about-Dignity-HoL-event-April-2024-FINAL.pdf

Slight tangent as this next bit is about same-sex accommodation.

When I was checking NHS updates on single-sex and same-sex provision for this post I came across this.

I wonder if the revised guidance on NHS same-sex accommodation was put on hold pending issue of the EHRC Code of Practice? Not that a delay for that reason would be justified.

Delivering same-sex accommodation
Document first published: 14 September 2019
Page updated: 24 April 2025

Following the ruling from the Supreme Court in the For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) case published 16 April 2025, our Delivering same-sex accommodation guidance, published in 2019, is currently being reviewed.

All providers of NHS-funded care continue to be expected to provide high quality care that meets all patients’ clinical needs, safeguards them from the risk of harm and ensures their privacy and dignity when they are admitted to hospital.

Providers should continue to measure and report breaches of the NHS Constitution pledge on same sex accommodation.

Revised guidance which supports privacy, dignity and safety for all patients in hospital accommodation will be published as soon as possible.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/delivering-same-sex-accommodation/
and
https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/delivering-same-sex-accommodation/

That was published under the Topic "Gender Identity" and there have been no other relevant updates in the "Gender Identity" Topic since April 2025.

Burnham now supports Supreme Court and code:
https://x.com/geri_e_l_scott/status/2057791734952628427?s=48&t=BhQtR1Qh_r5onq7KsMOKrw

New: Andy Burnham has backed the EHRC guidance on single-sex spaces and said the Supreme Court ruling on biological sex must be implemented.

Burnham told journalists at his campaign launch in Makerfield that his views had changed since previous comments made in 2022, and he said: "I think the time has come to take the Supreme Court ruling and the guidance and implement it. But to do it in a way, obviously, that protects those spaces, but does not marginalise already marginalised communities."

He said: "Let's implement the guidance, but to do it in the fairest and most compassionate way possible."

"We've got to move into the next phase and not constantly re-running the arguments. I think Britain has done this too much in recent times, you know, with Brexit and other things. We've got to stop arguing with each other."

I'm glad that we've finally got back to where we were before all this nonsense started. No, it's not perfect, in most situations there will be no one there to enforce it, but that's what we always had.

Good men stay out so that bad men stand out. That's how it always was and that's where we are coming back to now.

We've come a long way from not even being able to state the bloody obvious.

How will this work for women who need same-sex care at home or in hospital? Are we not allowed to ask?

Burnham now supports Supreme Court and code:
https://x.com/geri_e_l_scott/status/2057791734952628427?s=48&t=BhQtR1Qh_r5onq7KsMOKrw

New: Andy Burnham has backed the EHRC guidance on single-sex spaces and said the Supreme Court ruling on biological sex must be implemented.

Burnham told journalists at his campaign launch in Makerfield that his views had changed since previous comments made in 2022, and he said: "I think the time has come to take the Supreme Court ruling and the guidance and implement it. But to do it in a way, obviously, that protects those spaces, but does not marginalise already marginalised communities."

He said: "Let's implement the guidance, but to do it in the fairest and most compassionate way possible."

"We've got to move into the next phase and not constantly re-running the arguments. I think Britain has done this too much in recent times, you know, with Brexit and other things. We've got to stop arguing with each other."

Radio 2 now
Jeremy has used his soft voice already, TW making an impassioned speech and the Chair of hospitality appears to be in support of fully enclosed cubicles despite proven safety concerns.
TRA on now

Royal College Of Nursing calls for guidance on the guidance before it can possibly implement any of the guidance

https://www.rcn.org.uk/About-us/Our-Influencing-work/Position-statements/rcn-position-on-ehrc-code

You are completely spot on. Your breakdown of the building specs highlights exactly why making these rooms the default is a safeguarding nightmare, especially for children.
When you trap girls in a soundproof, floor-to-ceiling room with boys, you aren't creating "privacy"—you are creating a high-risk environment for bullying, sexual harassment, and illicit filming where no one can hear a child shouting for help. The fact that schools are having to install sound-activated panic alarms proves how fundamentally dangerous these designs are.
The only reason the universal toilet should exist is as an extra option to handle the exceptions, so that the main communal blocks can stay strictly single-sex and biological.

I have looked at the minutes and it appears the EHRC didn’t bring in the Building Control lot to actually see how this fits in with regulations.

Hence the term gender-neutral toilet. There isn’t such a term as gender-neutral toilet. There’s no definition or regulated set of parameters. They should have used the recognised term Universal Toilet.

Predictably disappointing. I think many orgs will simply do away with single sex amenities all together and provide so-called "gender neutral" facilities. For W&G this means dirtier loos, loss of female-only social space, more risk of cameras in loos, less loos, some women of faith unable to use public facilities.

It also shows a bias in the EHRC if they can’t actually use the correct terminology. I can imagine Building Control today saying, what’s one of these then?

To repeat what you said about design: A universal toilet is resistant to sound, a fully enclosed floor-to-ceiling room (not a cubicle) with a sink and drying facilities inside. It will usually require mechanical ventilation and has specifications on size and dimensions even down to where the 2 hooks are positioned above the floor line. It has a door that you can unlocked from the outside quickly and if the door is inwards opening it has to have the ability to open outwards, for the reason of someone collapses on the door. It will require a visual audio alarm for fire regulations. It opens directly onto a circulation space. This presumably is for the same reason as an accessible toilet - so people can keep an eye on who is going in and how long they are in there for.

The advantage of the universal toilet is complete privacy.

The disadvantage is complete privacy. No one can hear or see what’s going on. So if you have a medical emergency or are trapped you could be there for hours or days. They are subject to misuse. They smell and are scientifically proven to have more pathogens on the surfaces (when past occupants flush the toilet the plume reaches the sink and dryer). You can’t soak and run a mop around the whole floor as easily. There’s more items in which to place hidden cameras (which seem to be the voyeur’s choice method nowdays). If you run out of loo paper you can’t ask the person next to you for some!

The GLP say the universal toilet is the sophisticated choice for schools.

I say it’s dangerous. Schools have had to install alarms that are prompted by commands ‘help me’ or ‘stop it’ in these private, mixed sex designs.