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.

From that article:

Bridget Phillipson has approved the guidance, which was drawn up by the EHRC. It further states that signs should be posted to make single-sex spaces clear and that people can be asked whether they are eligible to use them if there is “clear evidence” that men are trying to access female-only areas. This could be based on “an individual’s physique” or concerns raised by other users.
But the code warns that it is “not always possible to be sure of a person’s sex from their appearance” and official documents, such as passports or driving licences, do not provide “reliable evidence” as these can be changed after gender recognition certificates have been granted.

The guidance states: “It is unlikely to be either practical or appropriate to approach any particular individual to make enquiries about their sex in relation to facilities, such as toilets, which are incidental to the primary service.”
The code also says that if “individuals are asked about their sex in a way that requires them to disclose this information in public, or if the language or manner of a request is rude, combative or offensive”, this could be deemed as “discrimination or harassment”.

How the actual fuck do service providers prevent men using women's spaces if they are not allowed to challenge them? How exactly are women allowed to reject a man in their spaces in a way that he will not perceive as 'rude' or 'offensive'?

She had a YEAR. A whole bloody year.

Ms Phillipson said: “The Equality Act enshrines our rights in law so that people can live free from discrimination and harassment.

Except women needing single sex spaces.

A source close to the minister said: “Bridget believes firmly in the importance of protecting single sex spaces for women, but this can be done in a way that ensures dignity for trans people too: it is not an either-or.

Of course it fucking is, what is she smoking?

“Bridget has ignored the frothing on both sides of the culture war and encouraged EHRC to focus on what matters: the dignity of everyone in our country. She will take no lectures on the rights of women just as she will never punch down on any minority.”

But she expects women to listen to insulting, absolute bullshit like that? Abject cowardice. Head in the sand nonsense, who the hell does she think believes her? Its as gormless and openly insulting as her pratting about with reality tv stars to sneer at the consultation responses from SEND parents, she is atrocious in this post.

The woman needs to go and take the rest of that bloody shower of a Labour party with her.

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?

Well its working. I have no further interest in anything that woman has to say or do, and will vote for anything at all other than Labour.

‘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.