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?

Edit for updated seen after drafting. I was too cynical 😆

My roses need some horseshit.
This is it.

Utter nonsense.

Yes, Pip Bunce, Eddie Izard, basically anyone who thinks their sex changes depending on what they're wearing. Eddie will no longer be able to use the female on facilities on his 'girl mode' days and neither will any other biological male.

Some of them already appropriate disabled people's facilities - there was a case some time ago of a TRA distributing RADAR keys to accessible toilets to transpeople, regardless of their ability status.

And of course 'they can used the disabled toilet', as if accessible toilets were a cheap workaround or a consolation prize for able-bodied transpeople.

Example
2.47 A group of men who have dressed in women’s clothing for a stag party are refused entry to a nightclub that has a dress code. This is unlikely to be discrimination based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

😂

I didn't think that was new... I thought the law already protected people on the grounds of perceived characteristics. So if, say, you fire a man because you think he's gay and it turns out he's not, that doesn't mean it was legal; he's still protected.

The receptionist at the practice begins to treat the individual unpleasantly, for example, by making comments referring to the individual as ‘it.’

This is a terrible example really, how likely is that to happen?

I thought so too. Misogyny and homophobia are still that even if the target has been misidentified. That was already the case.

It just wouldn't. The mental gymnastics of using a name not a pronoun, yes, all the time.

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).

Hm.

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.

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.

2.51 This Code only relates to the application of the Equality Act 2010. It does not deal with the implications of the For Women Scotland judgment for the application of section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to any other legislation.

Think these are fair enough as there is no suggestion that mixed sex provision replace single sex provision.

No, but I think the 'also' could have been put much more strongly.

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.

So there’s not much point to GRCs?

'Sexual orientation

What the Act says

2.92 Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic (section 12, paragraph 1). Under the Act, this means a person’s sexual orientation towards:

• persons of the same sex (the person is a lesbian woman or a gay man)
• persons of the opposite sex (the person is heterosexual)
• persons of either sex (the person is bisexual)

... 2.96 Gender reassignment is a separate protected characteristic and unrelated to sexual orientation, despite often being grouped together (for example, under the acronym ‘LGBTQ+ people’).'

I'm obsessing focusing on this aspect because I'm already well pissed off with how disability rights have been elbowed out of the way by TRAs.

Even the LGBTQ+ people don't thin gender dysphoria is a medical condition/mental illness:
Gender dysphoria is not considered to be a mental illness, although, like sexuality, it used to be treated as such...
Dysphoria is simply a different lived experience some of us go through in relationship to our bodies.
Layout 1
so why it should be used as a rationale for medical transitioning, or for protection for disability discrimination is mystifying.

No, there isn’t but it should still be dumped as it’s a lie that so much has been hiding behind

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.

Oh great. Now disabled people not only have to share their accessible space with baby-changing facilities, with also with 'anybody who does not wish to use the toilet for their sex.'

It's not new that they're protected. The law hasn't changed, so technically none of this is new. This example helpfully demonstrates how a TW is still protected without needing to be deemed a woman in the EqAct. I thought this should have been obvious, but it was one of ScotGov's arguments in the supreme court that TW would not be protected so I guess it needed spelling out.

Yep it’s 2.

Happy to be wrong, but I read this as being reference to an individual who undergoes medical operations for "gender dysphoria" could also become disabled from those procedures so would have both protected characteristics.

We read a lot aboout incontinence etc often being a consequence of these dreadful operations.

See also the young zimmer frame TRA protestors etc who have osteoporosis etc as a result of taking cross sex hormones. Won't they also have the PC of disability?

Oh great. Now disabled people not only have to share their accessible space with baby-changing facilities, with also with 'anybody who does not wish to use the toilet for their sex.'

It's not great but realistically, how many transgender people are going to be using the 'small advice centre' at the same time.

I am listening to PM solely to hear Evan Davies’ displeasure at reporting this news. 😆

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.

This example was the one I discussed at length in the consultation. I gave real-life examples of exactly why this was unsafe for women and children in a shopping centre, how it was unsafe from a medical point of view (mental and physical) and what will happen when implemented.

Well, as RobinEllacott says previously, a lot of young people have done a lot of harm to their bodies, to the extent that they will likely be disabled to some degree later in life. If they are disabled, then clearly they have a right to use the accessible toilets, although I really don't agree at all with this "self-inflicted" harm.

However, using the accessible toilets just because they don't feel like using the one appropriate to their actual sex? No. That, I think, should be challenged. If accessible toilets become the go-to for gender confused people, there may not be enough for people who actually need them.