So it seems likely the EHRC guidance will be issued tomorrow Thursday 21st May …

[RhannionKPSS]

That is if The Human Paperweight that is Philipson can make her mind up. What should we expect?

Yes...he's usually good on this topic

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5532766-ehrc-code-of-practice-on-services-public-functions-and-associations-has-been-laid-here-is-the-code-itself

Link to code itself in above thread

<live scenes from Arabella’s house this evening>

Yay, we got code

" I couldnt find a legal loophole to reject the guidance. So I am claiming that updates to protections to disabled people, and tinkering with advice about preganancy and maternity is the reason that I have taken 8 months to set this document before Parliament"

Here! https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026

Oh, I just did a thing as well!!

Oh well, she got there in the end, off to read!

"A comparator for the purposes of showing sex discrimination will be a person of the opposite sex. Sex does not include gender reassignment (read paragraphs 2.49 to 2.53) or sexual orientation (read paragraphs 2.92 to 2.96)"

well duh....

2.43 There is no minimum age for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which means that children and young people are protected if they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing, or have undergone a process of gender reassignment.

Not sure a two year old can have gender reassignment protections

Oh I don't like that.

I am sure this is wrong in law

Example 2.45 A person informs their GP practice that they are ‘gender fluid’ while they are undergoing gender reassignment and on some days they will present as female and on other days as male. The receptionist at the practice begins to treat the individual unpleasantly, for example, by making comments referring to the individual as ‘it.’ This is likely to be direct gender reassignment discrimination. The person is likely to be protected as they have adopted a ‘gender fluid’ identity as part of a process of reassigning their sex.

If non binary isn't protected then surely gender fluid isn't either.

Well I don't think the TRAs will like to think of themselves as disabled

2.48 Where an individual has gender dysphoria and the condition has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, they will also be protected under the disability discrimination provisions of the Act (read Chapter 6 and Chapter 7).

I think it's ok. Children should not be discriminated against either. But the comparater still applies - see girl guides

Some sense

Gender Recognition Certificates (GRC)

2.49 The Supreme Court in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (For Women Scotland) [2025] UKSC 16 has ruled that a GRC does not change a person’s legal sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment held that ‘sex’, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ mean, respectively, biological sex, biological woman and biological man for the purposes of the Equality Act. The judgment uses the expression ‘biological sex’ to describe the sex of a person at birth. The phrase ‘biological sex’ has the same meaning when used throughout this Code. This is also referred to as ‘sex at birth’ in this Code.

2.50 This means that, in relation to the Act, a person’s sex remains their biological sex, whether they have a GRC or not. For example, a trans man with a GRC is a woman and a trans woman with a GRC is a man, for the purposes of the Act.

There was a bit on TQ not being the same as LGB, which might be good, will re look.

I have to go out soon but I have got Chapter 13 (Exceptions) of the code primed to read later.

Is gender fluid is the new name for NB’s?

I thought gender fluid was more Pips Bunce than a blue haired intern. Could be wrong though.

Two toilet examples provided next to each other.

Example
13.123 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. They also note that this option may cause safety risks and distress for trans users if required to use the toilets designated for those of the same biological sex. The service provider therefore decides to also provide toilets in individual lockable rooms with hand basins, which can be used by people of either sex.

Example
13.124 A community group is opening a small advice centre. It decides to provide
separate-sex toilets for women and men, and it extends the use of the accessible toilet with baby changing facility so it can also be used as a mixed-sex toilet for anybody who does not wish to use the toilet for their 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. The community group should, on an ongoing basis, monitor whether there is any negative impact on both trans and disabled people and take appropriate action. If the community group is exercising public functions, this will also be relevant as part of their duties under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

I mean its really good in some spots. It says a trans woman might be discriminated against because people perceive her sex is female. I.e. transwomen are not women bit someone might have an accident and and confuse them with one

1. An individual may be wrongly perceived as having a particular protected

characteristic.

Example
A trans woman using the gym equipment in her local leisure centre is
subjected to comments from male staff members such as ‘watch what you
say in front of her, it’s her time of the month again’. As with the example
at 8.25, this could amount to harassment. However, in this example, the
harassment would be related to the trans woman’s perceived sex.

I thought gender dysphoria had been 'deselected' as an illness??
So how can it be a disability if it's not a medical condition?
Unless it's a self-ID kind of medical condition + disability?
Proving that it has 'substantial' adverse effect on your ability to 'carry out normal day-to-day activities' will be interesting:
shopping? cooking a meal? showering? walking down the street? catching a bus? awareness of hazards? manual dexterity?

If they mean that someone may experience mental illness because of gender dysphoria [if it exists], then they'll be protected because of that condition anyway.

Which is arse about face, I feel. Gender dysphoria is surely more likely to be a symptom of mental illness than a cause?