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

Can’t read it rn will see what is said on here.

That sounds like a sop to the TRAs. They tried to use that argument in the Edinburgh Rape Crisis tribunal. Who else cares about their sex being recorded and stored?

Making sex special category data is going to be a nightmare situation for government data people (I work in the sector). Also just.. does this mean I can never be referred to as Mrs, Miss, madam, by a shop assistant? What if my name makes my sex obvious? Make it make sense! What a strange thing to decide to add.

The first point still sounds like we’re stuck in proportionate land.

Is it clear enough, sounds so if you want to up to you.

Can’t seem to C&P from the Code but Example 12.68 on p220-something is quite clear that a trans woman can’t join a women’s group and isn’t being discriminated against.

Pertinent after the Aussie shitshow.

Here's the screenshot and onto the following page...

I dont see how given the wording of the EA and the Supreme Court ruling they can now say sex as a "special category" when it is a protected characteristic in the EA.

So data should be collected on that, and so should data be collected on those who have or are progressing to Gender Reassignment.

What a load of crap.

I wonder if that is what Baroness Falkner originally submitted.

Its reading as a bit of a dogs breakfast tbh.

A lot of wangling, a lot of leaving service providers to figure things out alone with warnings (basically don't be a service provider at this point), confusion and mixed messages.

This took them a year.

Competitive sport – gender reassignment

13.73 Any sex-based rules or arrangements relating to participation in a gender-
affected activity (read paragraph 13.65) should be applied on the basis of
biological sex. Therefore, trans people should not be included in single-sex or
separate-sex competitions for the sex with which they identify. They should
also not be treated as that sex for the purposes of any other sex-based rules
or arrangements that relate to participation. The law on the exception for
sex discrimination in relation to gender-affected activities in section 195,
paragraph 1 is not settled (read paragraph 13.66). However, it is unlikely to
permit rules or arrangements that treat trans people as the sex with which
they identify, and participants or prospective participants may bring claims of
direct or indirect sex discrimination about such rules or arrangements.

Example
13.74 An athletics club chooses to organise a competitive running event that includes women and trans women. Running is a gender-affected activity. A woman who participates may be able to bring a claim for indirect sex discrimination due to the provider’s decision to include trans women placing her at a particular disadvantage. Men who are excluded from the event may also be able to bring a claim for direct discrimination based on their exclusion. This is because the exception for sex discrimination in section 195, paragraph 1 may not apply if the club chooses to include trans women and exclude men.

13.75 In addition, it may be lawful to exclude some trans people or treat them
differently from other members of their own sex in relation to participation
in a gender-affected activity, when necessary for reasons of safety or fair
competition. If it is not necessary for these reasons, it is likely to be unlawful
to exclude trans people from participating in the same way as members of
their own sex.

13.76 Consequently, if a person is organising single-sex or separate-sex events
for men and women, or other events with sex-based rules in relation to
participation, in a gender-affected activity, they should consider their approach
to trans competitors’ access to the service.

13.77 Direct gender reassignment discrimination can occur if a policy or decision to restrict participation of trans people is made on the grounds of gender reassignment. This would be the case, for example, if a trans man is excluded from a women’s event because of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Read Chapter 2 for more information on the meaning of gender reassignment.

13.78 Indirect gender reassignment discrimination can occur if a provision, criterion or practice puts trans people (including the individual trans person concerned) at a particular disadvantage compared to people who are not trans and it cannot be justified. This might be the case, for example, if a rule that excludes people who have received certain hormone treatment is more likely to result in the exclusion of trans people than others, unless that rule can be justified. If such a rule is necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition, it is likely to be justified.

13.79 In addition, in the context of a gender-affected activity, the Act provides
an exception to a claim of gender reassignment discrimination if a person
restricts participation of a trans person and can show it is necessary to do
so for reasons of fair competition or the safety of competitors (section 195,
paragraph 2).

13.80 This exception applies to service providers and public authorities, but not to associations covered by the Act who organise competitive sporting activities
solely for members and their guests. However, associations may still adopt
general rules which prevent people from participating in a sporting activity,
for example because they have received certain hormone treatment or have
hormone levels exceeding a set limit, if this is justified for reasons of safety or
fair competition.

Example
13.81 A boxing gym runs a boxing competition for women. A trans man who
has undergone treatment with testosterone wishes to compete. The gym
declines his request because they are concerned that the treatment has had
the effect of increasing his muscle mass and strength. This is likely to be
lawful if the gym can demonstrate that there would be a genuine health and
safety risk and / or impact on fair competition if the trans man were allowed
to join the competition.

13.82 The combined effect of the exceptions relating to sex and gender
reassignment under subsections 195, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Act
may impose significant limitations on the ability of some trans people to
participate in some gender-affected activities. If the exceptions have been
properly applied, this will not be unlawful under the Act. However, this result
could constitute unlawful indirect gender reassignment discrimination unless
the overall arrangements for participation are a proportionate means of
achieving a legitimate aim. Organisers should therefore consider whether
there are additional alternative arrangements that could be made to enable
trans people to participate in the activity in question. This might include, for
example, having mixed-sex categories in addition to separate-sex categories,
or having a category in a gender-affected team activity with specified numbers
of men and women on each team, which would enable trans people to
participate as part of the specified number of members of their own sex (read
paragraphs 13.66 and 13.73).

13.83 Given the physiological differences between men and women, and the
potential impact of treatment that trans people may receive as part of the
process of transition, it will often be necessary for organisations to develop
general policies to guide and inform their decision making. Policies should be
supported by clear reasoning and an evidence base. They will often wish to
draw upon guidance from sporting authorities. Relevant factors may include:
-the extent to which there are competitive advantages arising from
sex-based physiological factors, such as physical strength, stamina
or physique
-whether such physiological factors give rise to safety risk factors, such
as those arising from physical contact between men and women
-whether medical or other interventions that trans people may have
received as part of their transition process, such as hormone treatment,
may affect fairness and / or safety
-whether there are additional or alternative arrangements that could be
made to enable trans people to participate
-whether an activity is primarily competitive, or competitive but with a
significant social and recreational purpose and whether it is a mass
participation event.

(TLDR I reckon they wanted this example I have bolded for parkrun)

p 267

Separate or single-sex services – gender reassignment

13.142 If a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) is considering providing a separate or single-sex service, they should consider their approach to trans people’s use of the service.

13.143 The impact of separate or single-sex services on trans people should be
considered when the service provider is deciding whether it is justified to have
a separate or single-sex service. Read paragraphs 13.120 to 13.133 for further
information on this.

13.144 If a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) decides to have a separate or single-sex service and allows trans people to use the service intended for the opposite sex, the service will no longer be a separate or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). It is also very likely to amount to unlawful discrimination against others (read paragraph 13.131). It is possible to offer a mixed-sex service alongside a single-sex service. A mixed-sex service must be open to all service users.

13.145 If it is justified to provide a separate or single-sex service, then it will not be unlawful discrimination because of gender reassignment to prevent, limit
or modify trans people’s access to the service for their own sex, as long as
doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (schedule 3,
paragraph 28).

13.146 For example, a trans man might be excluded from the women-only service if the service provider decides that, because he presents as a man, other service users could reasonably object to his presence, and excluding him is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

13.147 A legitimate aim for excluding a trans person from a separate or single-sex service for their own sex might be to prevent discomfort or distress for other
service users. Service providers should consider whether other service users
could reasonably object because they are worried about sharing a single or
separate-sex service with someone who appears to be of the opposite sex.
That will depend on all the circumstances, including the nature of the service
in question and the extent to which the trans person presents as the opposite
sex. For this reason, a service provider (including a person providing a service
in the exercise of public functions) should only consider doing this on a case-
by-case basis.

13.148 The service provider should consider whether there is a suitable alternative service for the trans person to use. In the case of services which are
necessary for everybody, such as toilets, it is very unlikely to be proportionate
to put a trans person in a position where there is no service that they are
allowed to use.

13.149 If the service provider does not act proportionately, this is very likely to
amount to direct or indirect discrimination because of gender reassignment
(section 13 and section 19

By the way, I am copying and pasting for anyone who doesn't want to go through the pdf document.

BUT also for future finding the information and ease of copying to answer questions or support the usual arguments.

Bizarrely, confident statement about excluding a trans person from their sex based provision in specific necessary circumstances (example given as to a women's VAWG related group, the original one, where women may be unable to access with someone who looks convincingly male) but nothing about how to help the trans person access a different service, or to provide an additional service.

And this bit:

3.176 If, in all the circumstances, it is legitimate to ask an individual to confirm their sex, and that is done in a manner which is proportionate, it is unlikely to involve unlawful discrimination and harassment. If the provision of the service meets the criteria set out in the Act for the provision of single or separate-sex services, it is unlikely to amount to direct sex discrimination. Read paragraphs 13.92 to 13.153 for further detail on single-sex services.
13.177 Requesting confirmation of sex in such circumstances may not have a harassing effect and, even though the approach may place trans people at a particular disadvantage, it is likely to be justified. Read Chapter 8 for more detail on harassment.
13.178 Where an individual confirms, in response to such a request, that they are not of the sex for which the single or separate-sex service or association in question is intended, they may be required to leave and thereafter be excluded from the service. This should again be handled as sensitively as possible in the circumstances.

Clarity.

13.179 Where there remains a genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a request for an individual to confirm their sex, then the service provider, person performing public functions or association should consider what action is proportionate in the circumstances. There is no type of official record or document in the UK which provides reliable evidence of sex. For example, sex on passports and driving licences may be changed with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), and birth certificates may reflect the acquired gender of someone who has a GRC. Therefore, it is unlikely to be proportionate or practical to ask for further evidence of a person’s sex. In such circumstances, it is likely to be necessary to weigh up the relevant factors to decide whether to exclude the individual from the service or association or to permit them to continue to access it.

WTAF?

13.180 Factors that may be relevant to this decision include:

• the strength of the continuing grounds for concern
• the nature of the service
• the nature and potential severity of the risks and potential harms to, respectively, the individual in question and other service users

?

Other relevant legal considerations
13.181 It is important to be aware of legal provisions protecting privacy in the context of making such enquiries. Unless it is relevant for operational reasons, whether or not someone has a GRC is unlikely to be relevant information for the purposes of asking about either the protected characteristic of sex or the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. However, if, in the course of asking for such information or otherwise, a service provider, those exercising public functions or an association acquires information that someone has a GRC or has applied for a GRC, onward disclosure of either that information or their sex without consent may be a criminal offence in some circumstances (read section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004).

Yes, I'm confused about this, too.

Being discussed now on BBC PM with, so far, the dreadful trans ally, Evan Davis being quite low key.

Didn't hear the whole segment but the woman presenting the info said (because he asked) that trans women should not use women's toilets.

Just saying this as when has this ever been said on the BBC by a BBC presenter!

Thank you for that, will be useful in future.

adding examples

13.150 Group counselling sessions are provided for female survivors of domestic violence. The service provider excludes a trans man from the sessions
because they consider he is likely to be perceived as a man and the service
provider is concerned that women service users could reasonably be
worried or distressed by the presence of someone they perceive to be a man
using the service.

The service provider’s decision to exclude the trans man from the service
could amount to direct gender reassignment discrimination because he
has been treated less favourably than a woman without the protected
characteristic of gender reassignment. However, in this situation the service
provider is likely to be able to rely on the exception from liability explained
in paragraph 13.145, because the decision to exclude the trans man was
proportionate.

Example
13.151 A trans man attends a gym frequently and uses the women’s changing
room, consistent with his sex. If the gym owner decides that he can no
longer use the women’s changing room and there is no other changing room
he can use, this may be a disproportionate decision. If it is disproportionate,
the gym owner will not be able to rely on the exception for gender
reassignment discrimination (schedule 3, paragraph 28). The trans man will
be able to bring a complaint of direct gender reassignment discrimination,
because he has been treated less favourably than a woman who does not
have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

13.152 If the nature of a service means that it is only, or generally, used by women or by men, this does not mean that it is necessarily a separate or single-sex service under the Act. A service like this does not need to operate according
to the rules and principles described in paragraphs 13.99 to 13.151. However,
the Act (schedule 3, paragraph 30) contains a different exception which
means that, in services of this sort, it will not be unlawful discrimination if
the service provider refuses to serve a person of the opposite sex, if it would
be impracticable to provide the service to that person. The service provider
can also refuse to adjust the way in which the service is provided to meet the
needs of a person of the opposite sex. This exception applies to all protected
characteristics in the Act, not just sex.

Example

13.153 A hospital provides an Obstetrics and Gynaecology (OBGYN) outpatient
service. Only women and trans men need to use the service. The hospital
provides the service to women and trans men in a way which preserves
all users’ privacy and dignity. Where that is the case, it is unlikely to be
proportionate to exclude a trans man because of objections from female
service users.

The outpatient service does not offer any treatment which is suitable for a
man or a trans woman and therefore can refuse to treat them. The hospital
can also refuse to adjust the way in which it provides the service.

It seems to be saying we don’t know you figure it out.

Presumably that it will be based on birth sex and the Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that within the Act sex is biological.

Not knowing of having any idea of who Pete the Plumer is, but assuming he identifies as female, he would be entitled to make a complaint based on his gender reassingment (assuming he can show this as a fact - not a fleeting fancy).

So if he has been a sexist shit a woman could complain that that it was discrimination on the basis of sex.

Therefore, it is unlikely to be proportionate or practical to ask for further evidence of a person’s sex. In such circumstances, it is likely to be necessary to weigh up the relevant factors to decide whether to exclude the individual from the service or association or to permit them to continue to access it.

Placing the burden on the service provider to say yes or no? How many are going to do that with an angry, aggressive, large male in front of them?

They'll just cave, admit them, and force the burden onto women, who will have to take legal action.

Am I reading this correctly?

Isn't that basically the result in LS vs NHS - that having mixed sex by stealth / NHS trans policy was discriminatory against women not least because so many women would be excluded because of it. I seem to recall they actually quantified the numbers? The claimant had both pcs of sex and religion.

In the public sector for the vast majority it'll never be proportionate to get rid of single sex spaces (truly single sex) because of the extremely large number of people (women - 51% of the population plus those holding a belief that means they need single sex) who will always need single sex.

Hmmm. The guidance is referring to the transwoman as ‘she’.

Hundreds of pages to address the fact that women shouldn’t have to undress in front of men, etc.

The underlying problem being other rules which allow sex markers to be changed eg on birth certificates.

I shall be interested in how we that is you experts think it will affect the Hampstead Ponds muddle.

Surely in terms of what has happened in the past, and the number of organisations that fell victim to Stonewall "guidelines" there needs to be some directive that makes it clear it isn't dependent on service providers enforcing this right to same sex services, but people who try to decieve their way into same sex services that is not their sex, they would be liable to be prosecuted for false representation.

I doubt Labour would do this, but this is the reality because for so long Stonewall law was pushed as the law.

Hopefully everyone will see sense and have employment T&Cs and also service provision agreements that require employees / users of a service to use designated spaces according to sex and/or mixed sex options. So then the onus is on the individual not to break those rules deliberately and they can be sanctioned if they do break the rules just as they can be sanctioned for breaching any other T&Cs e.g. exhibiting antisocial behaviour (which is what using wrong sex spaces is).