Consultation has reopened 20/05/25

[Justme56]

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-services-public-functions-and-associations

Thanks for this. Off to have a look.

Thank you! Have been waiting for this…

'Updated legal definition of sex

We have updated the legal definition of sex throughout the code of practice. Our previous definition explained that:
‘Legal sex is the sex that was recorded at your birth or the sex you have acquired by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).’
Following the UK Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland, this definition is no longer accurate, because a GRC does not change your legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. We have therefore updated this definition throughout the code to be:
'Legal sex is the sex that was recorded at your birth.'
Please go to the consultation page to read about this change. '

The consultation consists of the EHRC publishing the new "Code of practice for services, public functions and associations" & inviting comments. I have skimmed through it & they repeat over & over that following the Supreme Court ruling biological men are excluded from female single sex spaces & services.
It looks like a done deal. The TRAs will hate it but I cannot see how they will persuade the EHRC to change the code of practice at all

I've just skimmed it, too. And they keep saying 'gender' affected areas.

Disabled women (or men!) concerned about the repurposing of disabled facilities to accommodate those who prefer not to use the facilities provided for their sex may wish to think about commenting on the example given in Section 13.3:

"13.3.12 A community group is opening a small advice centre. It decides to provide separate-sex toilets for women and men, and it repurposes the accessible toilet to be used as a mixed-sex toilet for anybody who does not wish to use the toilet for their biological sex. This is likely to be proportionate given the size and resources of the centre and takes into account the needs of all the potential service users."

How on earth does this take into account the needs of disabled service users?!

Example
13.3.11 A service provider operates a shopping centre and decides to renovate the centre. It initially intends to only provide separate-sex toilets to improve the safety and comfort of users. This disadvantages trans people because it means that a trans person cannot access a toilet catered towards their acquired gender. The service provider therefore decides to also provide toilets in individual lockable rooms which can be used by people of either sex.

Are these individual lockable toilet rooms private? They currently have to be as under regulations no mixed sex toilets allow door gaps. They also have to be openable from the outside outwards (as a body stops the door opening so you can’t always retrieve someone), therefore the ‘lockable’ and ‘secure’ is questionable.

This discriminates against women and children (both who are more likely to be assaulted in toilets in shopping centres, train carriages, stations, schools) and anyone who is medically vulnerable.

Private, mixed sex toilets in public spaces have always and will always be where people go to have sex. It’s just whether they are forcibly led there or decide to go there voluntarily, and once in there are agreeable to everything that goes on. I have been researching this long enough to know that private mixed sex toilets will be used for drugs, sex and self-harm. There will be a disproportionate amount of crimes and deaths in them.

I do like the way it states ‘only provide separate-sex toilets to improve the safety and comfort of users’ .
Indeed SAFETY is what separate sex toilets provide, especially for those with disabilities such as diabetes, epilepsy (1% of the country) and other conditions where you can collapse without warning. It’s also a life-saving measure for anyone who feels ill, heads to the loo then has a heart attack, stroke or seizure. Someone has a stroke every 5 mins in the uk, the same for heart attacks.

Single sex toilets are the only ones that can have door gaps. It is safer for everyone to be using single sex designed toilets with door gaps.

What price safety?

Click on the picture. The left hand side design can only be a single sex design.

We don’t need more private, mixed sex spaces in public areas.

@Keeptoiletssafe I really wish there were separate sex disabled facilities...

Absolutely!

People who need disabled toilets are already compromised by others using them.

I also wish the government realised not everyone who is disabled uses the ‘disabled’ toilets and may need the protection the door gap provides.

edited: I pressed send too quickly.

Ikea has a large disabled bay within the women’s- and presumably men’s- bathroom.

Does that meet the need? Is that the way to go in future?

That’s possibly an ambulant toilet - but yes these are welcomed for those who need more space, grab rails and a shelf, as long as they have the door gaps. I find it incredible that toilets designed for frailer people have grab rails but if they fall inside the cubicle - no one would know if it’s a universal (mixed sex) design.

Again, other side comments for a good laugh:
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1kr2it5/ehrcconsultationhaslaunched/?shareid=bjzpvp8iXKmJ2aLKswKR&utmcontent=1&utmmedium=androidapp&utmname=androidcss&utmsource=share&utmterm=1

They're quite, quite, mad:

"What if you don’t have a GRC because you’re cis How do they find out if you don’t have one?
(Obvs the idea of interrogating someone to find out their AGAB is wild anyway, we are all “deceiving” people and must be “found out”…disgustingly transphobic)"

Those comments. Never was the word NO more important.

I noted this:
"It all seems very one sided, i.e. it all about women's safety not equality"

Imagine writing that. They haven't a clue how society views them have they?

"It all seems very one sided, i.e. it all about women's safety not equality"

JFC, they're not afraid to say what they see, are they?! God forbid women's safety was given any thought! We have MEN WITH HURT FEELINGS here!

The blunt answer to that is, would you rather collapse with a medical emergency in a:
a) single sex toilet design with door gaps
b) gender neutral toilet design

It is all about equality in a gender neutral design in a medical emergency. Everyone is equally knackered.

Mixed sex designs never have door gaps because of voyeurism by men and the fact neither sex likes going to the toilet next to the opposite sex.

There's an unbelievable level of narcissism involved in all this and it's why we've ended up here. From #nodebate, the framing of women as support humans required to produce undressed bodies to validate random men, standing aside from women's sport in favour of mediocre men and (worst of all) to make children available to be gaslit by the "you've been born in the wrong body but a sex change is the cure".

I know these toxic beliefs are well embedded in society but the SC judgement goes some way to restoring women's rights and the ability to safeguard children.

I'm pleased with this. I think it is very clear. There is not much for those of us who are gender critical to say I don't think. I'm not sure whether it is worth going through everything and "strongly agreeing" that it is clear. I didn't do that but in hindsight think perhaps I should have done.

There's a free text box at the end. I wrote in there about the casual nature of sexual assault and how women can be protected from this in changing rooms thanks to the updated guidance. No longer can a man respond "I wasn't flashing, I was just getting changed", "I wasn't intentionally watching her change, I just fell and happened to end up looking into her cubicle" which is what happens in unisex spaces (however they are named).

if we don't, you can be sure as hell those people on the Reddit link are, in their thousands.

@TangenitalContrivences I'm -assuming- hoping that they will also accompany their "strongly disagree" with nonsensical and irrelevant comments in the text box and thus be weeded out.

Yes. Narcissism, plus a very spoiled lobby used to being the sole focus and sole consideration, and being repeatedly encouraged to believe that 'equality' means only whatever trans people want.

Listening to any of this from RMW or Jolyon you very quickly notice the politics show an incapacity to take on board that anyone else exists, has rights or is entitled to equality or protections. And then you get on to the flat out prejudice against women, all women, including trans identified women, and people who insist on being homosexual even after the lobby told them not to.

Of course this political position is bewildered by this strange and nasty idea that other people have rights and it's not all and only about men with trans identities. The constant reiteration is necessary.

Issues like the need to consider disabled access and toilet safety are the important parts at this stage, its going to be about practical issues and solutions, not about trying to renegotiate what the law means.

Oh yes. given them enough space to be mad and hopefully, ignored. So lets be sensible and clear :D

Interestingly, I see the scenario RWW brought up on Woman’s Hour about a mother taking her son into the women’s changing rooms is included as an example of an allowable exception which still keeps single sex spaces single sex…. presumably that neutralises RWW’s line of attack??

The exemplar scenario though does say a son aged 10, which personally I think is a bit old to be coming into the female changing room…. our local pool has a maximum age of 8. Thoughts?

The general opinion across MN has always seemed to be around 8.

Although if gender neutral spaces are provided, that solves that problem altogether=.

The pool that we go to has 5 which I think is a bit young. 7 or 8 seems reasonable. 10 is pushing it.

I was pleased to see that. The idea of grown men equating the presence of male babies and little boys in women's changing rooms with their wish to also be present was really grim