EHRC has now sent its new guidance to ministers

[Charabanc]

Here we go...

ETA it's not "guidance" any more, it's the new Code

Equality law regulator submits updated code of practice to Minister for Women and Equalities

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, Chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:

“Over the past two years the EHRC has undertaken a major project to update the entire statutory code of practice, which was published in 2011, to reflect over ten years of new legislation. Following the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers in April, some additional sections required further revision.

“We have now submitted an updated draft of the code to the Minister for Women and Equalities. The government is responsible for laying it before Parliament. Once Parliament has considered its content, I look forward to the EHRC publishing this guidance, fulfilling our statutory role to provide clear information that protects everyone's rights under the Equality Act 2010.

“We have been clear that service providers, associations and public functions should not wait for the code of practice to be published to make any changes needed to comply with the law. As duty-bearers they must assure themselves of their legal responsibilities in their own specific circumstances and seek independent legal advice where necessary.”

Following ministerial approval, the UK Government must lay the draft code before Parliament for 40 days before it can be brought into force.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/equality-law-regulator-submits-updated-code-practice-minister-women-and-equalities

They have, or at least, they say they have - but an early day motion has to be selected, 99% of them aren't due to time issues, and then there actually has to be a debate and only then maybe a vote on annulling the legislation. I am certain everyone has better things to do than this, given the free speech issues, Rayner, Gaza, Ukraine, the race riots.....

There is no overwhelming discourse in either house to have this debated. It won't happen.

Where does this leave M&S's 'Fitting rooms'?

I would have liked Baroness Falkner to use her opportunity in Radio 4 this morning to reiterate the existing law which is men should be excluded from women’s spaces, regardless of their identity or risk unlawful discrimination against women. .

I feel like this needs to be repeated constantly to counter Stonewalls lies embedding a false version of the law deeply into the minds of many.

We can clearly see there are many ‘intellects’ at high levels struggling with this information - they obviously need further help in understanding.

Exactly where they were before, because the EHRC does not and cannot change the law. (IANAL and wasn't following carefully what they do, but if they have fitting rooms that are in any way indicated to be for women, then they have to be for women and no men, otherwise they will be direct discrimination (against those men who are not allowed in) under the EA; if they claim only to provide mixed-sex fitting rooms, that may be legal, given that shops don't have to provide fitting rooms at all, or there might be a case to be made that it's indirect discrimination against women because the fitting rooms they do provide are more suitable for men, but personally I wouldn't hold my breath for getting that one sorted in court.)

I was wondering how this will affect organisations like the WI and even the Freemasons

Organisations do not have to offer single-sex spaces under the guidance, but if they do, they must be based on biology.

The MPs calling for a debate I'm sure some are sincere but others may just be virtue signalling. They can't really want to be seen standing up to say some women have a dick. With the Reform wolf slavering in so many constituencies do they really want to look anymore sheep like?

It will more affect the WI. If they allow Trans Identified Men to join, which they do, then they are open to being sued by men - who are being discriminated against.

(Do the Freemasons allow Trans Identified Women to join? If they do, and continue to do so, then women can take them to court.)

To summarise - membership selection by sex is allowed. Membership selection by gender is open to being sued.

Iirc re. the Freemasons, if a man is a member and then transitions he is allowed to stay a member but if he is already trans he cannot join. Tm can be eligible to join. According to a Freemason display I walked past at an agricultural fair the other week they have Freemason societies for women, possibly two. I suspect they will have a similar sex fudge.

If TM can join the actual Masons, not just one of the Ladies groups/lodges, then women could sue them.

I agree that this is good, 'So what are you going to do if us transwomen insist on peeing wherever we want?' has a clear reply: sue for harassment or indirect discrimination.

I wonder does the UK's Public Order Act 1986 apply?

• Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence:
• Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress:
• Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress

Biological males deliberately entering, and refusing to leave, women's single sex facilities is likely 'to cause harassment, alarm or distress' and, post the SC ruling, is clearly intentional.

I'm also glad that the EHRC has said something sensible about 'gender neutral' toilets being optional and not obligatory.

'Third spaces' [actually fourth spaces: accessible toilets for disabled people - remember them?? - are the existing third spaces] were being touted as the great solution to the issue of transwomen using women's spaces.

'Third spaces' were oversold: they are expensive and disruptive to instal in existing public buildings, they are optional in new builds according to building regs [where applicable] unless there isn't enough space for the required single sex facilities, and they are rejected by transwomen who insist that they may can should must and will continue to pee where they want: in the women's toilets.

I think already transitioned men could also probably sue. Perhaps the FMs are hoping no-one will?

I assume they could, on the grounds of discrimination of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

But they don't want to take on big boys, do they? Only the wimmins.

Also, of course, that would be admitting that they are not, actually, laydeez.

I know the EHRC cannot change the law but what I was thinking of was M&S's move to mixed sex changing cubicles from single sex spaces. That's happened recently and the photos on the adjacent walls lead you to believe you are in a single sex space.

I think M&S is leaving itself open to an indirect sex discrimination claim from women because only providing mixed sex changing rooms poses more of a risk to women then men because of the risk of sexual assault is higher for women. That is

Yes I think Betterbe was right as are you.

I’m waiting with interest to see how Girlguiding tries to wriggle out of this, in light of their update sent to members on Wednesday.

"Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at Sex Matters, the campaign group, said: “Far too many organisations have been using the excuse that they are waiting for this guidance, even though the Supreme Court made the law clear in its judgment in the case of For Women Scotland in April.”

She added that the new code of practice must “leave no loopholes for those still seeking ways not to comply”.

I'm sure the Good Law Project will manage to find a couple of things that they think identify as loopholes, (only to have their arse handed to them on a plate yet again) if it means they can keep their grift and begging for money routine going a bit longer.

But hopefully we'll start to see more companies just going for "Sorry Chardonnay the laws the law, our hands are tied and you'll just have to use the gents" to those men in their staff that complain.

I think, as @Boiledbeetle says, they will just hold their hands up and say "we are being forced, it's not us, sorry" then roll over and forget about it. what else can they do?

Call me childish, petty, even vindictive but I love it when they ask for a debate, because it gives me the chance to shout No Debate, your game, your rules NO DEBATE. I find it very therapeutic. 😁

Ha ha ha!!! 😆

The TRAs that masterminded the plan that was very successful, but doomed to fail eventually, are the ones most scared. Their plan was to instigate ‘trans inclusive’ policy and establish this as the norm so if/when organisations were made aware of the law people would laugh at such an outdated law (like the illegality of flying kites in London) and it would swiftly be amended.

They know that in establishing perfectly acceptable third options, the sympathy they prey on will dissipate because everyone will see that this is perfectly fine and doesn’t deny privacy or dignity. It’s what they were hoping for in reverse, but their blind spot regarding the number of disordered, disturbed and disturbing individuals who label themselves ‘transwomen’, foiled their cunning plan.

I do hope this reshuffle does not screw things up...

I doubt it will. Keir's got a slightly bigger problem to deal with today 😆

Well the reshuffle is thanks to today's events! Quite possible Bridget Phillpson will not be equalities minister come Monday

Apparently the whole thing is "hugely complicated".

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/05/equalities-watchdog-response-uk-supreme-court-transgender-ruling