The Times has seen a copy of EHRC's final guidance

[Igneococcus]

and it looks like it's pretty rubbish:
"Under the new guidance, places such as hospital wards, gyms and leisure centres will be able to question transgender women over whether they should be using single-sex services based on how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others."

https://www.thetimes.com/article/82eecc43-711f-4c0a-b669-42d09d60d63e?shareToken=e5c7b92df4468caa07dbd71d66c660ab

This

"It said “there is no type of official record or document in the UK which provides reliable evidence of sex” because people can change their sex on passports and driving licences without a GRC."

Is a big problem which needs to be fixed

Sigh. No further forward then, huh.

Thanks for the link !! I always appreciate it.

Under the new guidance, places such as hospital wards, gyms and leisure centres will be able to question transgender women over whether they should be using single-sex services based on how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others.

Could this be in relation to what you can do if you think a transwomen is using a female single sex space.

Let's say Suzie is using the female changing room and the staff believe that Suzie is a man based on his appearance and ask him to leave - this bit of the guidance could conceivably be saying that would be permissible even if Suzie has ID stating female

I took that as meaning that it's fine to challenge someone over whether they should be using that facility.

What's rubbish about it? Are you concerned about the bit where it says it might not be practical or proportionate to request documentation? Why is that a problem when the provider can exclude an opposite sex person from a single-sex space based on the other criteria that are mentioned?

And it only says it is 'unlikely' to be practical or proportionate to request documentation, not that there are no circumstances in which it would be practical or proportionate. For e.g., I imagine it might be proportionate before allowing someone to take up a bed in a women's domestic violence refuge [EDIT I mean, in cases where their sex had been questioned or was questionable].

I'd want to see the whole thing, but if we've moved from 'let them go wherever they want no questions asked' to 'you can ask questions, and you don't need to request proof because thanks to the demented twattery of Stonewall there's no reliable documentation you can ask for so balance of probabilities is ok' that's an improvement, isn't it?

Adding this summary published tonight as well

What is the new gender guidance on single-sex spaces and sport?

https://archive.is/TKE7n

Maybe, I hope you're right.

They can't go against the law! This Code of Practice has to obey the SC judgement.

But it says that if there is “genuine concern about the accuracy of the response” it may be proportionate to exclude a transgender person anyway.

That looks most encouraging.

Are Labour more frit of Reform or the Greens? As depressingly, I think this might be fairly crucial to whether they have the stones to actually publish it.

there is zero chance that is the interpretation taken by many many places though. Sigh. Back to the courts it will be for brave women to clarify the guidance.

The link I posted says this

The guidance sets out how it would be lawful for a transgender person to be asked about their biological sex, in order to preserve single-sex spaces. The decision to ask could be based on, among other things, their appearance.

If there is doubt about whether they are telling the truth, other matters would then need to be taken into account when deciding whether to exclude them.

I think that the guidance covers situations where providers don’t believe the identification, knowing that identification can be changed.

It also says this:

It means that if a trans person is admitted to a service which is for the opposite sex, it would no longer be a separate or single-sex service, which could amount to unlawful sex discrimination.

If this is stated a clearly as this in the guidance, that would be a good thing.

Let's all stop panicking, and relying on journalists' interpretation.

Anyway, hopefully the real thing with be laid soon.

I genuinely don't understand what other , troubling, reading of the quoted para you are thinking of -- i.e. how it can mean anything other than @ProfRedLorryYellowLorry 's "I took that as meaning that it's fine to challenge someone over whether they should be using that facility."

Can you clarify?

Someone will have to do the challenging though. How likely is that, say in a changing room in a clothes shop. If you were an employee of for M&S and a transwoman walks into the female changing room, would you challenge that person or think it's not worse the hassle?

I'm more interested in this bit tbh:
The new guidance states clearly that trans people may be excluded from single-sex spaces that do not correspond to their biological sex when it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”, such as protecting privacy, dignity or safety.
Poor reporting, I hope, rather than the wretched 'case-by-case' again

Well what did you think was going to happen? That TRAs would roll over and play nice?

This is giving people explicit permission to challenge them.

But lots of women have challenged men in women’s spaces and been told that the law is on the side of the man. That’s what’s changed. (In the UK at least) Now you can do it without risking being the one who is thrown out.

"Under the new guidance, places such as hospital wards, gyms and leisure centres will be able to question transgender women over whether they should be using single-sex services based on how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others."

It’d be great if that’s what it means. I’m worried though. If this is the correct wording, it feels odd and ambiguous. Why does a trans woman need to be questioned? If they are trans, they cannot not use sss’s. Feels like a loophole.

Gym Owner: Should you be using the woman’s changing room?
TW: Yes I should. I’ve got long hair, makeup, nail polish and am wearing a dress and using a lilting voice. I behave like any woman.
Gym Owner: okay then, go ahead.

TW should not be using sss’s based on their sex not their appearance or behaviour.

Isn’t that always been the case?

The justification for the single sex space in the first place has to be a PMOALA. There is no further justification needed to exclude trans-identifying males from a female ss space

Edit for clarity

And I doubt that there will be much challenging happening even with explicit permission.

But future Sandie Peggies and Darlingtons won't happen, and saying 'this is the ladies, mate' will become more normal and add to the cumulative decapturing.... (Yes I'm an optimist)

But that's what the guidance is about - whether and when it is lawful to exclude people from a single-sex facility, i.e. by having a policy and by taking steps (such as challenging people) to enforce the policy.

The guidance was never going to say anything about the responsibilities of an individual not to enter the wrong space. Is that what you wanted to see? The Equality Act only places duties on service providers, employers and public bodies.