Written statement by Bridget Phillipson mis-represents the EA and the Supreme Court ruling

[IwantToRetire]

This government has always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. The Supreme Court’s ruling last year brought clarity for women and service providers such as hospitals and refuges, and made clear that protections for trans people remain in the Equality Act.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is the independent equality regulator and ensures compliance with the Equality Act 2010. Their Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations covers all nine protected characteristics and the steps service providers should take to comply with the law. We share the EHRC’s commitment to ensuring duty bearers have accurate and up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act 2010 including in the light of the recent Court rulings.

We are grateful to the EHRC for their work on the updated draft Code following engagement and further legal analysis. The EHRC is rightly focussed on ensuring the updated Code is robust, accessible and ensures duty bearers can be confident that it is a clear and accurate explanation of the law.

The government received the updated draft on 13 April. The Code will apply across Great Britain and as we are currently in the pre-election period for the devolved administrations, we are unable to make further announcements on this matter at this time. However, we are taking urgent action to meet our intention of laying the Code in May and as soon as practicable after the election period, for Parliamentary scrutiny.

We are getting it right, showing leadership by implementing the clarity the Supreme Court ruling delivers.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-04-14/hcws1509

The Equality Act protected characteristic of Sex was always about biology - ie it was only the transing of society that allow some to pretend it was about "identity".
i) So the clarity was there, but because the Government had not adhered to the protected characteristic of sex that allowed organisations to think it could mean identity.
ii) So the supreme court ruling wasn't about clarity but a reprimand to everyong including Governments who tried to change it under pressure from Stonewall etc.
iii) This is important as confirming that sex measn biology is not just about "safe spaces" but about women's sex based right in any number of areas eg sport, associations, etc..
iv) It confirmed that "legal sex" given to those with a GRC is NOT the same as biological sex.
v) ie any protection for trans people relates to their obtaining a GRC or on the pathway to obtaining one, so (as even Baroness Falkner has hinted) it makes it clear that the GRC rights do not over ride sex based rights.

It is really important to remember that the Supreme Court did not just asset that sex is biological, put also made clear that any attempt to say the protected characteristic of sex could be impinged on by an other protected characteristic is actually DISCRIMINATIONATORY against the protected characteristic of sex. No other protected characteristic is impinged or infringed on in this way.

The statement is either deliberately NOT asserting what the ruling means, or because they are still hoping that they will not have to implement the Supreme Court ruling in full because of prioritising trans rights above women's sex based rights.

UK equalities watchdog forced to change draft trans guidance
it has emerged that the draft code – which the EHRC described as being “legally sound” – has been changed after “feedback” from the UK Government.
https://archive.is/f3u57
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26021423.uk-equalities-watchdog-forced-change-draft-trans-guidance/

Phillipson delays trans guidance until after elections
Education secretary claims purdah rules prevent her from publishing updated guidance on women’s safety
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/04/14/phillipson-delays-trans-guidance-until-after-elections/
https://archive.is/BZw5s

Bridget Phillipson orders equalities watchdog to tone down trans guidance
Bridget Phillipson told Britain’s equality regulator that it must “tone down” its guidance over single-sex spaces and make it more inclusive before she presents it to parliament, The Times understands.
https://archive.is/GJP31
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/bridget-phillipson-ehrc-single-sex-spaces-9g7hhltqn

What do you actually think is misleading about the written statement? It isn't at all obvious from your points i-v. The demand for 'clarity' has been longstanding, including on the GC side - that's why the ruling was a relief. The EA had left enough uncertainty for Stonewall law to creep in.

I really want to see the new guidance. I wonder whether we will need yet another court case…… But don’t worry Bridget, we will be ready, if you want to remove our rights in law, you will need to change the actual law

Is it me or did none of these article's actually state anything. What was toned down? What does the tone down version say? What are we talking about here? I'm confused. 😕

Lots of discussion on the two already-existing threads on this topic - https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5516801-written-statement-at-230pm-today-first-anniversary-of-the-fws-v-sm-ruling?page=6&reply=151700322 and https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5516813-ehrc-have-suubmitted-updated-code-of-practice-to-phillipson

Not sure why we have this third thread.

Its about being clear and reminding the Government and Stonewall etc., that there never was a time it wasn't clear.

Stonewall was allowed and supported to say that sex in the EA didn't mean biology. And that is why FWS started their court action. Not to re-interpret the EA but to make it clear sex always was and stil is biological.

BP is just tyring to cover up that they all too willingly worked with Stonewall etc., to undermine the meaning of the word sex.

Proably because the whole way the wrote the SSE was to be a trojan horse that they could in the future create an EA where sex would not be biological.

That is why the Court saying for it not to mean biology was in fact discriminatory.

Part of this was caused by making the SSE seem like only on occassions should something be single sex.

In the lived world, the exemptions should have been the few occassion when someone had a "legal sex" that could be said to be the same as someone with an actual biological sex.

BP and Labour are misrepresenting what has been happening because they want to move to the next stage of the SSE trojan horse that allows the minority group (those with a GRC) have power over the actual protected characteristic.

As is said so often most people dont have time for long threads. They aren't interested in endless speculative discussion.

But in fact in the instance I was so outraged by BP's statement I wanted to point this out as well as making a link to it quickly and easily available

And later on reading the newspaper articles without saying what I am saying, her statement is obviously part of undermining the Supreme Court ruling.

Yesterday there were 3 or it may have been 4 threads duplicating or triplicating an issue.

Did you comment on that.

However, if you are able to summarise any facts posted in the thread you mentioned I am sure many would be pleased to have these listed.

Stonewall was allowed and supported to say that sex in the EA didn't mean biology. And that is why FWS started their court action. Not to re-interpret the EA but to make it clear sex always was and still is biological.

BP is just tyring to cover up that they all too willingly worked with Stonewall etc., to undermine the meaning of the word sex.

Why would BP try to cover up the tories allowing stonewall to run riot?

I also don’t see an issue with the statement

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn08849wz07o

Single-sex space guidance for organisations to be published after May elections

”This government has always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”.

Of course it has.
And Starmer never said that 99% of women don’t have penises.
And transgenderists have never threatened to murder women who refuse to obey them.
And Bridget Phillipson is not a cowardly jobsworth trampling on women’s rights.
And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Did anyone else instantly think of George Orwell?

Government reviews EHRC code of practice on services following backlash over trans inclusion
Earlier interim guidance published by the EHRC in April 2025 had been criticised by campaigners and equality bodies for suggesting broad exclusions of trans people from single‑sex services, including toilets and changing facilities. Critics argued the proposals amounted to a de facto national “bathroom ban” and went beyond what the law requires .
https://www.scenemag.co.uk/government-reviews-ehrc-code-of-practice-on-services-following-backlash-over-trans-inclusion/

And I am not saying this is a reliable source, but this illustrates the campaign that has been underway since the ruling and the EHRC initial guidelines.

Why does anyone think Bridget Phillipson mentioned trans rights in a statement about single sex services.

Because despite the Court ruling etc., Labour are still trying to make out that it is a retrograde step to say sex is a biological reality and that the protected characteristic of sex should have the same intrinsic reality as say Race or Age.

So far from holding back until after the local elections because of fear of TRAs, they are holding back because what they will propose will be a betrayal of women's sex based rights.

The Times article said

"[Phillipson] has been in talks with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), under its new chair Mary-Ann Stephenson, and while the guidance itself will not change, the regulator has been asked to include more examples of how organisations can be inclusive within the law."
and
"A source with knowledge of the process said much of the discussion had been over the “tone” of the document, with a feeling it had been approached with the aim of excluding transgender people rather than finding inclusive ways of operating while also upholding the law.

The Times understands that the changes that have been made to the resubmitted code are minimal."

If this is accurate and the changes are including more examples of what is allowable rather than changing the substance, I think it's good. More examples help everyone. If it makes the guidance more palatable to TRAs because it specifies some things that would have been allowed anyway, I think that benefits everyone. Service providers will be more confident that provisions made for trans people are within the law and probably will be reluctant to go beyond those.

Well lets hope you are right, but clearly the TRAs are only going to accepted regulations that allow them to access single sex spaces. Just to repeat:

Earlier interim guidance published by the EHRC in April 2025 had been criticised by campaigners and equality bodies for suggesting broad exclusions of trans people from single‑sex services, including toilets and changing facilities. Critics argued the proposals amounted to a de facto national “bathroom ban” and went beyond what the law requires

That has nothing to do with "tone". The implication is that by simply saying single sex means single sex (ie biological female only spaces) it is the wrong tone.

The campaign against the EHRC is because they said that the Supreme Court ruling makes clear that sex is a biological reality.

TRAs are still saying it doesn't, and the EHRC are adopting the wrong tone to say that. ie it isn "unkind"

Because TRAs are saying they have the right to enter places labeled as for one sex or the other, based on how they identify.

And to not do this is exclusionary.

Quite happy to be proved when and ever BP publishes whatever it is they are going to push through Parliament.

But suspect the "right" to single ammenities let alone "safe spaces" will be smaller than ever and sadly have the power of a recent HoC agreement behind it.

I have no idea if I'm right; I haven't seen the changes.

That's why I said
If this is accurate and the changes are including more examples of what is allowable rather than changing the substance, I think it's good.

I hope what The Times said is accurate and that the changes are minimal. I hope none of the changes are substantive. We'll have to wait to find out.

Not criticising you. It would be great to think it is all going to be alright.

But is if was, it would have been done and dusted by now.

And although admitted not trusting anything Labour says, the written statement by BP is all the same old we think we can hide what we are really doing by using platitudes.

I have no faith in Labour at all.

And sadly am not reassured by statement from MAS at EHRC.

Although would like to think it EHRC has conceded to Government pressure they would have indicated that in statement.

Although almost the worst outcome, would be some sort trick wording that in fact still leaves it open to interpretation. Or back to the "case by case" basis.

It will just be another piss take at women's expense.

I hope the extra examples include a lot of being inclusive by 'using the facilities associated with their sex or the mixed sex options' in lots of different sections.

It really is that easy and not problematic at all.

If the 'new' EHRC guidance doesn't accurately reflect the actual law, then guaranteed there will be an application for a judicial review. Phillipson can't actually get around the actual law, no matter how hard she tries to be kind.

The Oceania and Eastasia quote was the first thing that went through my head when I read that statement!

If they've "always" supported single sex spaces, why was Rosie Duffield persona non grata to the point where she felt she had to leave the party? It doesn't add up.

Surpreme court is final, and the most daunting procedure.

I’m concerned that any change in “tone” will prove to be the thin end of the wedge.

I expect that. No matter what the guidance says, someone with £££ won't like it, e.g., GLP, Sex Matters, Christian Legal Centre, perhaps disability rights organizations and the associated plaintiffs. Ultimately, I think that will be good because it will provide more clarity.

Possibly because it would mean admitting that Stonewall Law existed and was overriding Legal Law (sorry, can't put that better.) Once you start admitting that happens then people will start to talk about inconvenient things like disability law being routinely ignored by schools and LA's and replaced by their own practices. They might make the link between hatred being stirred up against parents of disabled children and the attitudes to the so-called terfs. Heavens, they might even start expecting there to be consequences for senior staff who fail to follow the law.

I wonder if the current 'Mumsnet are stinky poo pants' wave is down to the fact that they're highlighting the gap between the law and the reality and that's dangerous to the groups who are rather more protected than other groups? I'm back to Animal Farm again. All animals are equals, but some are more equal than others.

I would like to be paranoid or wrong, but that'd start with ambulances not reading 'proud partner to the LGBT community' but not to any other community.

They supported spaces labelled 'single sex' which weren't because they also supported men going into those spaces and using unconsenting women as validation tools (or worse).

The Lib Dem pretty much admitted that's all it's about - though not the AGP bit!

And this is why third spaces has never been acceptable to transactivists because the ones who want to just live their lives and be accepted are not the ones driving the demands. It's an inherently abusive anti-woman's rights demand where using unconsenting women is key.