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

The Supreme Court was clear that trans identified men with a GRC are still men under the Equality Act so the code of practice must reflect that.

Agree, but this is the sort of detail I am wondering whether the EHRC is going to deal with.

And also, although I am totally behind the ruling, this will no doubt bring on another round of men with GRCs have been betrayed, and then those under 10,000 people will become the foundation on which every self identifying, non binary combination (ie life style choice) will pile in and the EHRC will be under attack again.

I suppose I am just thinking that more and more we may have laws, or guidelines on behaviour or whatever but entitled groups always think none of this pertains to them, because they are so special.

And sadly some politicians will support them.

It will only change when and if, and that is if ever, the public as a whole and all those who feel entitled to comentate do so from the perspective that this is a women's rights issues.

But it never is seen like this. It is always about a tiny oppressed minority whose lives are being ruined by that horrid powerful majority women.

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chairwoman of the EHRC, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think it’s going to be difficult for duty bearers, service providers, to adapt a ruling which is quite black and white into practical steps according to their own circumstances and their own organisation, which is why we’ve always emphasised they should take their own advice as well as adhering to our code.”

How can they take their own advice?

Or does she mean asking so expert, who surely should be following whatever these guidelines say.

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/adapting-gender-ruling-practical-steps-081216837.html

I think she means they should get their own advice, from say specialist lawyers.

It will be up to individual service providers and employers to provide sex-separate or non-segregated loos, the EHRC won't tell them how to do that.

Most advice to use the Disabled loos is from TRAs kicking off that they are being literally genocided by having to use the Men's, for example.

Given the whole Supreme Court Case and ruling was purely about whether a GRC changes sex under the Equality Act, it was hardly a ‘detail’

Yes, that’s how I took it too. Because if they don’t follow a just and reasonable process in discriminating legally they could be liable for claims from both women and trans people on a number of grounds.

About time

Poor Baroness Falkner - you can tell how irritated she is by all the whining. I hope Mary Ann Stephenson is at least as tough.

In the old days companies would have gone straight to Stonewall or similar. Now, thank god, they are learning that there is real law here, and they have to follow it.

Cue much screaching from the usual suspects, but employers and service providers now realise that times have changed and they won't risk being sued by uppity women.

Labour Pains summary of the position of the doomed legal challenges, including ones from Good Law Project, now the EHRC guidance has been submitted. Lots of money wasted on nothing.

Mananadrama: the ongoing Supreme Court lawfare of five male drama queens
https://labourpainsblog.com/2025/09/05/mananadrama-the-ongoing-supreme-court-lawfare-of-five-male-drama-queens/

Lots of money wasted on nothing.

Not for the people who are basically paying themselves from those funds... The grift continues.

But even the trans gang on Reddit are going to start noticing that nothing ever gets won... There are one or two dissenting voices on the GLP fundraiser, pointing this out.

The SC said that for the purposes of the EA 2010, birth sex is the key factor so men with a GRC are men so they don’t need any further provision.

Tbf they also claim it’s ‘outing’ and therefore genocide to use the disabled as well.

I think they’ve blown it.

Thanks for the link, it's something all those activists that have stump up for the crowdfunds needs to read.

'To date, the crowdfunders in support of these and other misconceived, meritless and wholly performative legal challenges have collectively leeched some £706,000 from the fearful, “besieged” and evidently misinformed ‘trans community’.
(my bold)

and

'In short, as was both predictable and predicted, the £706,000 grifted from ‘the trans community’ since 16 April has achieved … nothing. Zilch. Nada. Rien. Or, if you prefer, absolutely fuck all.'

I also love Mananadrama, I'm adding it to my lexicon.

The Mananadrama Defence, you could say

I think you haven't understood the point I was making.

The detail isn't about those with a GRC but about the points that many on FWR raised about how much effort employers and service providers put into providing genuine single sex services, as opposed to some half hearted alternative.

And to spell it out, all of this is happening because in terms of the law the only people that this supreme court ruling applies to are those with a GRC ie around 10,000 people.

But the reality is that for employers and service providers they are under pressure from the life style identifiers who through Stonewall law many now think they have to cater for.

Do you see the difference?

Those having to take decisions about alterations, alternative options or whatever, will be working towards placating a group of people who have no status in the law.

I agree that gender neutral toilets are not practical in every place of business, but in businesses/places of work where there are already 4+ toilets, what would be the issue in converting one of them?
Granted most TIM don’t seem to want to use them, but if they exist then they cannot reasonably argue that they have no where to go to pee.

You can't just re-badge an existing single-sex toilet into a gender neutral toilet - 'universal'/gender neutral toilets have to be enclosed in a self-contained room which contains handwashing facilities as well as a WC.

So 'converting' one of the existing toilets wouldn't be building regs compliant, the business would probably have to go the expense and trouble of installing a new, building-regs compliant toilet.

It might also remove some of the existing single-sex facilities - we've seen that happening, e.g. The Barbican in London, and it always seems to be the women's toilets that are sacrificed!

The great danger to disabled people's rights is the re-badging of the accessible toilet as gender-neutral - there was an example of that reported recently in a public building in Dudley where the response to the SC ruling was to put up notices saying that men must use the men's, women's use the women's, and the disabled toilets are available as gender neutral spaces!😡

It's unnecessary and a waste. Unnecessary because everybody is either male or female. TiMs should just be told to use the urinals like all the other men.
A waste because people on the whole and women especially do not like mixed sex toilets for reasons which are well known, and are less likely to use them. And as you say, many TA TiMs don't want to use them anyway. So it will just have the effect of reducing provision overall.

There'd have to be an awful lot more than four toilets in a building to bring me round to the idea that it was worth converting any.

In a London station recently, I saw very roomy single user self contained toilets in a sort of bay just before you got to the main women's block. Big enough for a user and a carer, or a parent and a pushchair. That's the sort of thing we need more of. Provision that actually meets physical needs.

Edited for clarity

Interesting, I did not understand what a gender neutral actually is, but that makes sense. While it’s very tempting to tell TIMs to just suck it up and go use the men’s toilet…I do think there should be some attempt to reasonably accommodate trans-identifying people. I think that when you have two groups of people who’s needs cannot be met in the same space it is unhelpful to pretend there is no difference (what the TRAs are doing), but it is also unhelpful to say that no attempt should be made to meet the needs to both. This doesn’t just apply to toilets, but to all single sex spaces.

That’s somewhat inevitable, as it is the first time it’s been spelled out in detail that any men who identify as women don’t have the right to use female spaces. As you say, the (wrong) understanding by organisations is that basically they all did.

Their needs can be met. Toilets and changing rooms are for urination/excretion or changing/showering. They are not for the affirmation of subjective beliefs. Claiming a trans identity is not a disability which needs special accommodation.
Segregation by sex is for dignity, privacy and safety. What are the different needs of TiMs compared to other men? How are they served by a gender neutral/mixed sex self-contained single user toilet, over and above a cubicle in the communal men's toilets?
And why is it worth having the unsafe, unhygienic gn/mixed sex toilets which discriminate against women?

Fair enough. If I’m being honest I don’t really feel like we should have to accommodate the wishes of TIMs either. But I also want to be practical, and if making some concessions to them will help protect single sex spaces for women and girls that’s a sacrifice I personally am willing to make. So far as the difference in needs between TIMs and regular men, well I expect the TIMs are worried about getting assaulted in the toilet/changing area/shower.

The trouble is, the provision of GN options wouldn't make that cohort of TiMs any less likely to try to use women's toilets. They want to use the toilets which are labelled female, and which women use. The driver for this cohort is the thrill of transgression or the urge to be validated as a real woman. GN toilets won't cut it for them.

Have you ever seen a newspaper report of a TiM being assaulted in a men's communal toilet facility or changing room?
Regarding toilets specifically, GN/mixed sex toilets wouldn't mitigate this (virtually nonexistent) risk because they are less safe for everyone. A man could push another man into a single-user self-contained cubicle, or even break down the door (the doors are - by design - openable from the outside for safety reasons).

As you've probably gathered by now, I don't think any good will come of pandering to the idea that people with special beliefs need special toilets or changing rooms. 😁

To go back to the original point, though: if there are loads of toilets, by all means convert a block into a row of GN/mixed sex cubicles for any people who have undergone such extreme body modification that they feel they might get stared at or cause distress in the single sex blocks. It's just that I felt 4 toilets was way too low a number and that supplying the needs of disabled people, or parents with kids, etc should come before GN toilets.