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

To my mind Helen Webberly's statements confirm that Trans ness is all about men wanting women's spaces. Gender reassignment is covered by law - such people can't be disriminated against because they (try to) present as the opposite sex.

I also got the feeling that she is only interested in the men.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/21/dont-challenge-trans-women-gender-phillipson-guidance-uk/

Oh, Bridget needs to go! This advice about not challenging anyone about their sex before they enter a single-sex space is complete and utter nonsense! She's added into the guidance

(and, btw, why is a member of government adding anything to a supposedly independent body's guidance?)

that service providers should rely on aspects of person such as "physique" but they shouldn't ask someone their sex!

This is farcical!

Women are once again being hung out to dry. They're all just going to leave it up to us to challenge and put ourselves in harm's way every single time.

This has actually set the whole thing back. There's the loophole, the excuse all service providers need.

waiter: "I couldn't tell if the person was male or female and I'm not supposed to ask."

owner of the restaurant: "The person was wearing a dress and had long hair, and so I assumed was female. Not allowed to ask. Not my problem."

Woman in ladies toilet who suddenly encounters a man in a dress in there with her: says... what?

Loopholes everywhere I’m afraid.

Huge step backwards for human rights according to the Lib Dem’s though https://bsky.app/profile/mariecgoldman.bsky.social/post/3mmfbujdhkc24

You're right, this is genuinely insulting. The snide, sleight of hand doublespeak. She's done this on purpose, hasn't she?

‘Frothing’ are they on mn a lot? Fuck em. That statement is so bad I hope they’re voted to oblivion.

How does this now work with not admitting trans-identified females into rape crisis centres if her "masculine " traits might be too upsetting for the other women?

I simply will not believe that someone at the centre would not ask her before allowing her inside. But, then, I suppose staff would be less at risk if getting punched in the face in that scenario!

This guidance so far is making a mockery of the law.

It’s a nothing. Whilst BP is patting herself on the back. Bizarrely arrogant and clueless.

I can’t believe people still rate them.

I mean only about 16% and dropping…

How will this work for women who need same-sex care at home or in hospital? Are we not allowed to ask?

'Gender-affected activity' is the language used in the EA:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/195

Please tell me we are not the only ones who have noticed this! (I'm not on social media)
Something has to be done

It’s a dogs dinner this guidance it really is, does not make anything clearer at all

The code can be changed as often as needed however….

Here I was thinking I was just being thick today, because I couldn't understand a word of it! I guess I'd better start saving up for my first legal action, because I am definitely not a "kind" sort of person, and I do speak my mind.

I really don't envy you, but we've got to do what's necessary.

How can it ever be proportional to exclude a woman from a service provided for women on the basis of her appearance? So we’re talking about specialist services for women who have experienced rape, or mental ill health - these women have a right to these services, where are they supposed to go?

I set the bar very low for this and Phillipson still managed to limbo under it.

To be fair, most people will just read the headlines and not the details. Its clearly stated sex means sex and whilst you can't directly ask, you should be able to challenge. It slides in the 'passing' challenge - TRA's are convinced they 'pass' and therefore will keep trying: women will spot it and continue to swerve. At least now, we can name it, complain about it and have it taken seriously. Women in France and Australia cannot even do that.

What’s more what does “visually very male” convey? That we genuinely can’t tell? Women can tell whether a man or a woman has entered the room.

For all its faults, it's a massive improvement on the 2011 stat code which remains in force until this one commences.