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

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.

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

Bloody hell, you couldn't make up the levels of incompetence, really. Surely that would have been one of the first things they should have thought of. Instead we go into lala fairy theory land which is totally irrelevant because of other laws.

The EA2010 isn't a get out of jail free card for all other laws. It's not the only show in town. Presumably a health and safety audit will look at toilets as well for service providers?

The irony of the GRC argument is quite funny when you think about it. If someone is waving a certificate around to prove they belong in the women's room, all they are doing is shouting, "Look, I have a legally stamped piece of paper confirming I am a biological man!"

You are 100% correct about the terminology. The law does not recognise or define "gender-neutral toilets." Instead, the official legal term used in the government's* *Building Regulations Part T is "Universal Toilet."
Part T defines a Universal Toilet under strict technical parameters, so first off it must be a completely self-contained, fully enclosed individual room with its own toilet, washbasin, and hand-drying facilities for single-person use. Shared handwashing troughs or those communal mixed-sex spaces are completely banned. Furthermore, the law states that these Universal Toilets may be installed only in addition to the mandated biological single-sex blocks, or when a building's footprint is physically too small to split into two separate rooms.
The EHRC doesn't need to consult Building Control because they are an equalities watchdog, not an architectural planning committee. However, the EHRC code aligns perfectly with these building laws. It instructs businesses that if a trans-identifying biological male needs accommodation, they cannot enter the communal women's space; management must route them to that "third space"—which is precisely the self-contained Universal Toilet defined by Building Control.

At least this is how I'm reading it. It's very interesting reading everyone's take on this.

You’re right about how the birth certificate system works, but a GRC does not act as a passport into women's spaces. The Supreme Court and the updated EHRC code have firmly established that for single-sex exemptions, "sex" means biological sex. Even if a biological male holds a GRC and a revised birth certificate, a service provider is still fully permitted to exclude them from female communal facilities to maintain privacy and safety. A piece of paper does not override a biological boundary.

Birth certificates can be issued in the wrong sex if someone has a GRC although saying that the majority of trans people don't have a GRC so would have original correct sex Birth certificates

We already have a rigid registration of biological sex, its called a birth certificate. While the Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows a person to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to change their legal sex, the courts have firmly established that a GRC does not grant automatic access to single-sex spaces. Under the Equality Act 2010 exemptions, a service provider is fully permitted to exclude someone based strictly on their biological sex, regardless of what their updated legal documents say .
The law mandates that business owners maintain a biological single-sex boundary and grants them the authority to challenge and evict those who breach it based on visual or behavioural evidence, with the birth registration system as legal support if taken to court.

Gender non-conforming women being challenged in women-only spaces is neither new, nor a big deal - it has happened to me 'Excuse me - this is the ladies' 'Yeah that's OK, I'm in the right place!' 'Oh sorry love!' and the sky didn't fall in.

There are probably very few women who look so much like men that a second glance at their height, gait, etc, or a few seconds of hearing their voice, will not reveal that they are female - just as not as many transwomen 'pass' as seamlessly as they think...

What weight should be given to edge cases like the very small number of women who have managed to make themselves look convincingly like a man?

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.

It is very difficult to write crystal clear laws based on outward appearances. Just like it is very difficult to write laws based on statements of internal feelings.

Doesn't these difficulties argue for a clear registration of biological sex that cannot be changed, except with the medical evidence of one of the DSDs whereby the initial registration was incorrect? If in doubt, show ID with name, age and sex and there is no more backwards and forwards.

The code as I read it, doesn't police how biological women choose to look, nor does it allow them to be excluded for having a masculine or non-traditional appearance. While the verbatim text states that staff can use an individual's "physique or physical appearance" as a reason to intervene, the code explicitly warns providers that "it is not always possible to be sure of a person's sex from their appearance." It mandates that any check must be done with absolute privacy and sensitivity. A masculine biological woman cannot be lawfully excluded because she is female.
The guidance simply closes the loophole of self-identification. It clarifies that if a business allows a biological male into a female space, that venue legally loses its single-sex status and faces immediate lawsuits from female users for discrimination. It isn't "transphobia", it's just a practical legal mechanism that protects female spaces while instructing staff to handle boundary checks with care.

I don't think it will be found unlawful as the Supreme Court judgment explicitly said that you could exclude people from the facilities of their own sex in certain circumstances. Service providers are required to make alternative provision if they want to do this.

I also hope it will be used in very limited circumstances such as rape therapy groups or similar

How about a woman who turns up in a clown costume? Or insists on wearing a comedy pastic "I have an axe buried in my head" toy? Or drunk? Or in the middle of a psychotic break? Is it ok to exclude them from a counselling service?

Yes, I agree with what you say about double standards, and certainly I don't think trans-identified males would be turned away from male support systems ( I don't think so?), so how can it be fair the other way?

I really don't know, but the SC decision made it crystal clear that masculine appearance could be detrimental to women who have suffered violence at the hands of men, so, in certain circumstances only, it would be lawful to exclude them (trans-identified females). It's not about how their appearance makes them not women; it's about how other traumatized women might feel/react in specific, high-risk services.

I don't think trans-identified females are required to be left without any services at all, but perhaps someone else knows more about that?

edited for spelling

Thank you, I confirm that I have now seen this. But it does not change my view that guidance that says that some women can be excluded from single sex services, on the basis of their appearance, will be challenged and found unlawful. And as a feminist I can’t accept that women can’t adopt whatever physical appearance they like, and that does not make them something other than women.
i think that probably is actual transphobia if we go down the path of well it’s your own bloody fault, piss off.

I thought that organisations and businesses would no longer be legally permitted to strip away single-sex toilets and replace them with multi-stall gender-neutral facilities? The two strict legal barriers now prevent this, the building regs and that superloo restriction?
I'd assume that if an existing organisation tries to eliminate female-only spaces, they would face immediate legal exposure under the Equality Act? Religious exclusion, indirect sex discrimination and such.

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.

The law of unintended consequences mentioned in a pp is what resulted in the demand for gender self ID eventually leading to the current law and guidance. A massive own goal! Sad times.

The approach on Woman's Hour was to keep it factual and rather bare relying on a dry account by Alison Holt, social affairs editor and then leave it there. Very much a we-have-to-cover-this-but-let's-get-the-unpleasantness-over approach.

However, I do rejoice whenever I hear on BBC Radio 4 "transwoman is a biological male who identifies as a woman".

You couldn't bring a claim against him under the equality act because it doesn't govern how private individuals must behave. But if the organisation failed to remove him you could make a claim of harassment against them.

As @Keeptoiletssafe says, he may be committing a criminal offence so it would be a case of getting the police to care.

cross post 😂

Is it scheduled to be? I wouldn’t put it past them to miss it out.