Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

322 replies

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 21/05/2026 16:37

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

Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, 2026

The Equality and Human Rights Commission's draft updated Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations.

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
26
SirChenjins · 21/05/2026 18:03

Was it their intention to create so much confusion and lack of clarity in order to build in delays and retain the status quo, i.e that every case has to go to court and then onto the appeal court and no-one has a clue what's happening?

EasternStandard · 21/05/2026 18:04

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 21/05/2026 17:49

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).

What is this? If someone says I don’t have any proof of ID then what?

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 21/05/2026 18:05

SirChenjins · 21/05/2026 18:03

Was it their intention to create so much confusion and lack of clarity in order to build in delays and retain the status quo, i.e that every case has to go to court and then onto the appeal court and no-one has a clue what's happening?

Well, if it wasn't their intention, it's doing a very good imitation of it!

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/05/2026 18:05

misscockerspaniel · 21/05/2026 18:03

Who has used the term “chairwoman” since 1989?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/05/2026 18:05

SirChenjins · 21/05/2026 18:03

Was it their intention to create so much confusion and lack of clarity in order to build in delays and retain the status quo, i.e that every case has to go to court and then onto the appeal court and no-one has a clue what's happening?

I was thinking similar

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 21/05/2026 18:06

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 21/05/2026 18:03

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).

Show quote history

Yes, hopefully. I think I understand that.
...What could possibly go wrong?😬

lornad00m · 21/05/2026 18:07

Oh they're going to love that. Does that mean they'll be eligible for PIP?

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 21/05/2026 18:09

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 21/05/2026 17:58

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?

Show quote history

I'm glad its not just me.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 21/05/2026 18:09

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/05/2026 18:05

I was thinking similar

Show quote history

So Bridget taking soooo long to "clarify" the guidance, in order to ensure that certain subsections are as clear as mud.

Thanks Bridge, maybe won't be name changing as soon as I thought!

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 21/05/2026 18:13

Between this and the SEND reform fuckery I increasingly think her garden needs a lot of attention.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 21/05/2026 18:17

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 21/05/2026 18:06

Yes, hopefully. I think I understand that.
...What could possibly go wrong?😬

Show quote history

KJK said something about this about a year ago. She said something along the lines of, and I'm paraphrasing, we piss away eleventy million pounds a year on EHRC salaries and in the end no-one is going to do anything because of their guidance. They'll do it because society says 'no, we want single sex, anyone breaching that is a wrong 'un and the police need to start enforcing indecent exposure'. We're some way there I think.

Of course along with this there are the court cases which I think do shift the needle. Particularly FWS. But the law's the law and this guidance is a waste of time IMO. The main thing is public opinion which is very much sex realist, particularly among the working classes who tend to be at the pointy end of the risks and harms from pretending sex isn't real.

KJK went on to say something along the lines of what's the bloody point of the EHRC, could we not just save that taxpayers money and put it into better quality schools - specifically better safeguarding. And honestly, at this point, I'm inclined to agree.

Peregrina · 21/05/2026 18:19

Running is a gender-affected activity.

This statement alone shows why it's a dogs breakfast!
Running is a sex affected activity. And as soon as we start saying sex when we mean sex instead of being coy about the word the better.

There was a use for the word gender in grammar - tables and chairs etc. in many languages have gender, but the do not have sex!

IwantToRetire · 21/05/2026 18:22

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 21/05/2026 18:17

KJK said something about this about a year ago. She said something along the lines of, and I'm paraphrasing, we piss away eleventy million pounds a year on EHRC salaries and in the end no-one is going to do anything because of their guidance. They'll do it because society says 'no, we want single sex, anyone breaching that is a wrong 'un and the police need to start enforcing indecent exposure'. We're some way there I think.

Of course along with this there are the court cases which I think do shift the needle. Particularly FWS. But the law's the law and this guidance is a waste of time IMO. The main thing is public opinion which is very much sex realist, particularly among the working classes who tend to be at the pointy end of the risks and harms from pretending sex isn't real.

KJK went on to say something along the lines of what's the bloody point of the EHRC, could we not just save that taxpayers money and put it into better quality schools - specifically better safeguarding. And honestly, at this point, I'm inclined to agree.

Show quote history

The problem isn't the EHRC.

The problem is Labour politicians who refuse to accept the guidance from the EHRC because it challenge them as "trans allies".

You only need to remember the disgusting way the Women and Equalities Committee sneered and belittled Baroness Falkner to see what the problem is.

Sorry to say KJK totally misses the point and doesn't seem to realise it is the polticians who are causing this. And doesn't seem to recognise who has the power. (And of course the power behing the politicians - Stonewall.)

The guidelines could have been presented and past 6 months ago.

The Labour Party chose not to do it.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 21/05/2026 18:24

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 21/05/2026 18:17

KJK said something about this about a year ago. She said something along the lines of, and I'm paraphrasing, we piss away eleventy million pounds a year on EHRC salaries and in the end no-one is going to do anything because of their guidance. They'll do it because society says 'no, we want single sex, anyone breaching that is a wrong 'un and the police need to start enforcing indecent exposure'. We're some way there I think.

Of course along with this there are the court cases which I think do shift the needle. Particularly FWS. But the law's the law and this guidance is a waste of time IMO. The main thing is public opinion which is very much sex realist, particularly among the working classes who tend to be at the pointy end of the risks and harms from pretending sex isn't real.

KJK went on to say something along the lines of what's the bloody point of the EHRC, could we not just save that taxpayers money and put it into better quality schools - specifically better safeguarding. And honestly, at this point, I'm inclined to agree.

Show quote history

But the law's the law and this guidance is a waste of time IMO.

At this particular point, I'm inclined to agree with you on this. I will keep reading and trying to understand, but as far as I am aware, the guidance cannot say anything that is unlawful according to the EA, so I think in the end we'll just have to fall back on the law.

MyFellowScroller · 21/05/2026 18:25

What about Politics and upcoming by-election?
Reform: Will they highlight the strict parts and emphasise they support Single Sex Spaces?
Lib Dems: Long wordy spiels about support for Trans
Greens: Hypno-Boob saying they got it wrong and the Greens will change the law and over-ride the SC decision.
Conservative: Live with it and promise to change on enforcement.

MatronPomfrey · 21/05/2026 18:25

Can’t wait to read the analysis by Pink News

MNLurker1345 · 21/05/2026 18:27

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 21/05/2026 16:57

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

Thank

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 21/05/2026 18:27

IwantToRetire · 21/05/2026 18:22

The problem isn't the EHRC.

The problem is Labour politicians who refuse to accept the guidance from the EHRC because it challenge them as "trans allies".

You only need to remember the disgusting way the Women and Equalities Committee sneered and belittled Baroness Falkner to see what the problem is.

Sorry to say KJK totally misses the point and doesn't seem to realise it is the polticians who are causing this. And doesn't seem to recognise who has the power. (And of course the power behing the politicians - Stonewall.)

The guidelines could have been presented and past 6 months ago.

The Labour Party chose not to do it.

Show quote history

Yes. These are politicians who don't follow the law, even the SCJ if they don't wanna, and have no respect for the EHRC.

However in these times when finances in the UK are at the limit, is there a point to having an EHRC with all its costs when the govt won't pay any attention anyway?

MNLurker1345 · 21/05/2026 18:28

@SingleSexSpacesInSchools thank you so
much for the other side of the debate!

Imdunfer · 21/05/2026 18:31

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 21/05/2026 16:44

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

Edited
Show quote history

Well that scuppers Hampstead Ponds. Good.

FernandoSor · 21/05/2026 18:32

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 21/05/2026 17:58

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?

Show quote history

The burden to apply the EA correctly has always been on the service provider. Nothing has changed here.

LlynTegid · 21/05/2026 18:34

I agree that implementation will be the next step. And enforcement if needed.

IwantToRetire · 21/05/2026 18:35

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 21/05/2026 18:27

Yes. These are politicians who don't follow the law, even the SCJ if they don't wanna, and have no respect for the EHRC.

However in these times when finances in the UK are at the limit, is there a point to having an EHRC with all its costs when the govt won't pay any attention anyway?

Show quote history

Yes because without them defining how a law works, employers, services providers cant be sued. Or held to account as the EHRC has done to MacDonalds etc..

The idea that individuals or even campaign groups should spend their time raising endless money to hold individual court cases, when one prosecution by the EHRC makes it clear to other organisations what their obligations are.

That is the whole point.

You might as well say why have an EA.

As if good "schooling" would solve anything like that.

It's like thinking if all our politicians were schooled at Eton the country would run better.

Totally fantasy!

Swipe left for the next trending thread