EHRC Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations has been laid - here is the Code itself

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Written Statement made by: Secretary of State for Education and Minister for
Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson) on 21 May 2026:

https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/105423/Pdf?subType=Standard

I have approved the draft Code submitted on 4 September 2025 and as updated by the EHRC in April 2026 following engagement with government and their consideration of consultation responses and further legal analysis.
The current Code was produced in 2011 and there have been significant developments since then, including the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland, resulting in the EHRC wanting to update the Code.
Following last year’s Supreme Court ruling, the draft Code’s content on sex and gender reassignment has changed substantially from the 2011 version. The ruling made it clear that sex means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and that trans people are still protected by the Act under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’.

The Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations itself:

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

Quick! To the analysis!!

😂

My breath is baited

Thank you SSSiS.

Someone who can read and analyse fast...tell us what it stays!!

It's a bit big

First run through says This is a very significant improvement. It moves the law back onto reality: sex means sex, women means female, men means male, and single-sex spaces cannot be redefined into mixed-sex spaces by identity language.

But there will be loop holes, there are always loopholes

The next fight will be implementation: forcing schools, councils, leisure providers, charities and public bodies to produce written policies, risk assessments and equality analyses that actually comply with the Code rather than just waving vaguely at “inclusion”.

We will have to hold people's feet to the fire for a long time yet

Is it the government server that is struggling to cope with demand?

I'm finding downloading this pdf more difficult then getting Glastonbury tickets

Deep link if it helps? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a0de69fe0994f7c13d7b411/EHRC_Code_of_Practice_for_services__public_functions_and_associations__2_.pdf

Woohoo

Always keeping an eye on the other side of the debate as well https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1tjocnh/guidance_is_out/

How can there be loop holes? if you provide womens single sex spaces ,they must not include any males (even ones with a certificate) or they are not single sex surely?
Unless you do away with womens spaces ,surely they must be male free?

page 38

Sex

What the Act says

2.87 Sex is a protected characteristic and refers to a male or a female of any age. In relation to a group of people it refers to either men and / or boys, or women and / or girls (section 11(a) and (b) and section 212, paragraph 1).

2.88 The Supreme Court in For Women Scotland ruled that ‘sex’, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in the Act mean biological sex, biological woman and biological man. The
judgment uses the expression ‘biological sex’ to describe the sex of a person
at birth. Earlier case law12 has set out the indicators of biological sex.

2.89 A Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person’s sex for the purposes of the Act. Read paragraphs 2.49 to 2.53 for more information
on GRCs. Read paragraphs 13.161 to 13.182 for more information about when
and how it may be appropriate to request information or evidence of the sex of
a person at birth.

2.90 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).

2.91 There are specific provisions which apply where the treatment of a woman
is because of her pregnancy and maternity, or because she is breastfeeding
(section 13, paragraph 6(a) and section 13, paragraph 7). Read paragraphs
4.54 to 4.73 for more information.

page 39

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)

2.93 Sexual orientation relates to how people feel as well as their actions.

2.94 Sexual orientation discrimination includes discrimination because someone is of a particular sexual orientation, and it also covers discrimination connected
with manifestations of that sexual orientation. These may include someone’s
appearance, the places they visit or the people they associate with.

2.95 When the Act refers to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation (section 12, paragraph 2), it means the following:

-a reference to a person who has this protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation

-a reference to people who share the protected characteristic is a reference to people who are of the same sexual orientation

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’).

The main loopholes are:

• “Balancing” language: organisations can claim they weighed women’s rights against trans inclusion and decided their current mixed-sex policy is “proportionate”.
• “Exceptional circumstances”: the Code leaves room for case-by-case exceptions, which activist organisations may turn into routine opposite-sex access.
• Weak enforcement detail: it says sex matters, but also says official documents do not reliably prove sex, so organisations may claim enforcement is impossible.
• Too much discretion: providers are told to make judgements, which lets captured schools/councils hide behind “complexity”.
• Soft language: lots of “may”, “could”, “usually”, “likely”, “good practice”, rather than hard “must”.
• Trans impact still centred: providers are repeatedly told to consider disadvantage to excluded trans people, which can be used to minimise the rights of women and girls.

I stress I am using an LLM to analyse the very large document, but these seem like genuine loopholes

There is a section that says that Gender Dysphoria is covered as a disability.

I wonder if this ' opens the door' to trans people being entitled to use disabled loos?

page 31

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.

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.

2.52 A trans person will be protected from discrimination because of gender
reassignment, whether they have a GRC or not.

2.53 A trans person will also be protected from sex discrimination whether they
have a GRC or not. They will be protected from sex discrimination that is
based on their sex at birth. They will also be protected from sex discrimination
related to their acquired gender where they suffer:
-direct discrimination by association or where this is because of their
perceived sex in their acquired gender (read about discrimination by
perception in paragraphs 4.51 to 4.53)

-indirect discrimination by association (section 19A) of the Act (read
about indirect discrimination by association in paragraphs 5.58 to 5.62)

-harassment related to sex (section 26) (read about harassment related to
sex in paragraphs 8.23 to 8.34)

A comparator for the purposes of showing sex discrimination will be a
person of the opposite sex.

Wait, how does Pete the plumber fit into this then?

FILLIA comment - https://www.filia.org.uk/latest-news/2026/5/21/the-ehrc-code-of-practice

At long last, I look forward to catching up with the 'analysis' when I return from work.
I hoping to hear good things. 🤞🙏

Even though everyone can see and hear what sex someone is. This is very poor.

I'm liking that 'This includes protections for women whose menopause has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their everyday life'.

The main thing about menoopause for me, apart from the hot flushes, is being extremely pissed off if anyone wants me to lie about sex and not having the energy to piss about being a support human for other people's special identities, especially when they undermine child safeguarding.

I have enough to do being a support human for my children and trying to safeguard them from idiots and predators.

My guess would be that a firm like Leonardo which is bloke heavy and may have more trans identifying men than women might get away with this argument.

I cannot see how the NHS with a heavy preponderence of women workers and the odd handful of trans identifying men would possibly get away with trying this one on. But, being as captured as the NHS is, I wouldn't bet on it.

Thanks for posting the direct link to this.

Just as a side comment the Government has issued a press release claiming it gives clear and accessible guidance.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/organisations-receive-clear-accessible-guidance-on-how-to-implement-equality-law-in-updated-draft-code-of-practice

I can see the loophole of organisations arguing single sex spaces are not proportionate so they wont provide them and will call them mixed sex/unisex/gender neutral.(i don't think trans people want this option,they want to access the spaces of the opposite sex)
I cant see the saying we cant be sure of someones sex is a strong argument.
I can see it could be discretionary as to wether single sex spaces are provided but i cant see how an organisation can call a space womens and include some male and be lawful. If its labelled peanut free, it must be peanut free,surely?
If the law says "must" surely thats all that matters?
I can see the impact on trans people must be considered but that cant be at the expense of single sex spaces, surely?

The main thing with this is, services need to stop being scared TRAs will kick up a fuss and start being scared of the loss of insurance cover and court losses they'll get if they pretend they cannot see sex. It looks like more court cases, unfortunately.

If they don't have single sex spaces many women and men of particular religions (including Islam) will not be able to use those services though.

I'm not saying this applies to all of that religion, but there will be plenty who will be unable to use public space without single sex provision.

The good thing is at least that they can't do 'mixed sex by stealth' - they have to be open about what they're doing and who they're excluding.

It's all very well saying that sex data is sensitive - the vast majoirity of us can tell at a quick glance whether someone is male or female.

I can see that other areas e.g. sexual orientation can be considered sensitive.

Nothing on the BBC website about this as far as I can see?