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

The Independent's take:

Phillipson says trans people are still protected

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?

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

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

Who has used the term “chairwoman” since 1989?

I was thinking similar

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

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

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Sex Matters have published their response to it.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/what-is-in-the-new-guidance/

Can’t wait to read the analysis by Pink News

Thank

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

Well that scuppers Hampstead Ponds. Good.

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

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

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!