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

From the Good Law Project's response:

Forcing trans people to use third spaces creates stigma, and risks outing them. A trans woman who goes to the pub with the rest of her female friend group would have to explain why she cannot go into the women’s toilets with them.

Do the GLP live in a world without senses or instinct? No group of women would genuinely believe that a TW who they knew enough to be friends with was actually female.

If the Police are investigating an allegation that a patient on a Ward has raped someone (rape rather than Sexual Assault by Penetration) then they should ask whether any patients are in possession of a penis. The NHS does not need to disclose anything about the patient's sex in order to answer that question.

In Scotland, the Sexual Offences legislation has been amended so that a "penis" may belong to either a male or a female, so it would be even more pertinent to avoid asking about "sex" and ask instead about organ needed, in law, to commit rape:

Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009
Part 1
Rape etc.
Rape

(4) In this Act—

• “penis” includes a surgically constructed penis if it forms part of A, having been created in the course of surgical treatment, and
• “vagina” includes—

(a) the vulva, and (b) a surgically constructed vagina (together with any surgically constructed vulva), if it forms part of B, having been created in the course of such treatment.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/part/1

However, there are whole list of exceptions in Section 22 of the GRA 2004 wrt the prohibition on disclosing whether someone has applied for a GRC, which is the only thing that those lying NHS staff might have been misguidedly relying on when they told the police that there were no male patients on the ward:

Gender Recognition Act 2004
22 Prohibition on disclosure of information

(4) But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—
(a) the information does not enable that person to be identified,
(b) that person has agreed to the disclosure of the information,
(c) the information is protected information by virtue of subsection (2)(b) and the person by whom the disclosure is made does not know or believe that a full gender recognition certificate has been issued,
(d) the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal,
(e) the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,
(f) the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,
(g) the disclosure is made to the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General for Scotland or the Registrar General for Northern Ireland,
(h) the disclosure is made for the purposes of the social security system or a pension scheme,
(i) the disclosure is in accordance with provision made by an order under subsection (5), or
(j) the disclosure is in accordance with any provision of, or made by virtue of, an enactment other than this section.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

Given the notoriety of that case and the awful consequences for the woman, whose rape was eventually confirmed as it had been captured on CCTV, this would have been a very helpful example to include in the Code of Practice to provide "clarity".

I would bet my bottom dollar that it is not in there.

Which definitely has me "frothing" at this cloth-eared quote from "a source close to the minister" in the Telegraph article:

"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.

“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.”

If that truly reflects her attitude then I hope and expect that her arrogance will see her unseated at the next election.

I would argue that gender identity, or the lack of it, is more so special category data. It's a philosophical belief, not a fact, and philosophical beliefs get special category data protection.

Makes much more sense

They live in cloud fucking cuckoo land

Every press release they have done has got further and further away from reality

The greens are of course reliably more fucking mental by a long way

https://www.thetimes.com/article/ddbba745-305d-44c6-957c-f10ce14914b7?shareToken=ebc4d0ab07de8000f7bd3f2ef0616692

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.

The Gender Recognition Act must be repealed to prevent this farce of falsified birth certificates.

Unimpressed that transmen have been thrown under the bus. There should be a duty for SSS to provision something for trans-identified women.

FWS will become a dead letter. What protections will anyone have if EA is repealed? We do not want this outcome.

Yes, the falsified documentation thing is a total farce. If (as is acknowledged in law and in the guidance) there are any situations at all where sex matters and exclusion by sex is appropriate, then two things follow:
One is that if protection is deemed necessary in the first place, there are likely to be attempts to breach it.
So the second is that you have to be able to challenge and demand proof.
Asking people to undress or have medical exams will in most cases be unfeasible overkill, so ID documentation is the obvious way to go (as is done for proof of age).
Lack of any reliable UK sex ID is something that needs to be rectified sooner rather than later.

The Times response:

The document, drawn up by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, was updated after last year’s Supreme Court ruling that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex.

An initial version, revealed by The Times in November, was submitted to ministers last year but was sent back to the regulator to add more examples.

The final version includes stronger references to protecting the dignity and safety of trans people, new sections on discrimination protections, and more limited circumstances in which trans people could be excluded than the original document put forward.

A government source insisted that any changes from the original submission were not designed to water down the guidance, but to ensure that it could withstand legal scrutiny and work in practice.

They said that ministers had pushed the EHRC to carry out a full consultation rather than attempt to “fast-track” the guidance after the judgment and criticised Baroness Falkner, the EHRC’s previous chair.
They said that the “grandstanding of the previous EHRC leadership made this process harder than it needed to be: if time had been taken in the preparation, this could have been delivered sooner” and added: “The government had to battle to get the EHRC to run a proper consultation rather than a fast-tracked version — a shorter consultation could have made successful legal challenge more likely.

“Changes in the initial update were not made at the behest of government, they were to make the guidance clearer following engagement with government and others — the original draft was rushed by the previous leadership of the EHRC and needed improving, leading to further delay.”

Ministers privately expect the guidance to face continued legal challenges once it comes into force.

Extracts only - full article https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/single-sex-spaces-biological-sex-transgender-ppfcxx3qx and also at https://archive.is/BQT5e

Bold is my emphasis.

Ministers privately expect the guidance to face continued legal challenges once it comes into force.

From which faction are the ministers expecting legal challenges? It would be interesting to know who they expect to be dissatisfied with the guidance.

I’m confident GLP will mount a rearguard action to firm it up by losing a challenge to it somehow. 10% is for administration fees, you know.

As a starting point, is unlikely that a transman will want to attend a female only service. Furthermore, if the service is in response to VAWG, it is likely that a passing transman would need specialist intervention - they identify as a member of the group that is deliberately excluded from the service for therapeutic reasons.

Raped and abused females with male identities need access to support and intervention but lumping them in with non trans females is problematic for both parties.

Transmen may need to access 1:1 services or mixed sex provision. This is one of the often unconsidered consequences of choosing to masculinise a female body.

The chair of the EHRC will be on the Today programme on Radio 4 at 8.10.

The same can be said about people with hidden disabilities who use the disabled toilets.

whats so different about trans people’s feelings?

Because in GLP world, trans people’s feelings will always take priority over everyone else’s. Nobody else’s feelings matter. Even if they are given alternative spaces and services, according to GLPs logic that will never be good enough, because being a woman or a man is just about some ‘inner feeling’ and has nothing to do with actual sexed bodies.

I am really worried about the language in posts like this responding to the code

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1tk1vng/is_anything_more_just_harassment_and/

War
genocide
nazis
gas chambers
eradication

You clearly don’t know many young women. I have student age 18-25 relatives who hand on heart believe it with every fibre of their body.

The introduction of actual thought crime by the party is complete.

people really do know for sure men can become women.

(the party being the revolving door establishment blob of the last 30 years)

Comparison of old and new guidance has leaked out

https://x.com/Geri_E_L_Scott/status/2057545266023022767?s=20

Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson is about to be interviewed on Radio 4.

Their ‘sophisticated’ (their words) solution for schools in the KCSiE was for all toilets to be fully enclosed with all facilities (sink etc) inside. This is the only regulated design for mixed sex use. Firstly cost?! Then space - far few toilets to use. Then the fact they are more dangerous. As a design they have to all lead out of to a corridor/ circulation space. How’s that going to work in a pub? No one would be going to the toilet with anyone. They’d be hanging around the doors to the unisex rooms.

Believe what exactly - That someone has changed sex?

Amol Rajan prefaced the chat with three key points that he stressed:

1. This guidance is not the law. The law is the law
2. It relates to service providers not employers.
3. Concerns can be raised in the 40 day period.

They really is a good portion of people young people, especially and I suspect more female than male who do actually truly do their core believe it. I know it’s double think and thought crime combined.

but enough people really are true true believers yes