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

Yes

Actually no, they were that sex all along.

Ministers expects the guidance to be legally challenged? Bring it on. It will make a change for the TRAs to fund the court battles and face the slog of proving their case.

This IS based on the law. Sex = single sex and they still have their protected rights. If anything is unclear, it will be:

• how to appropriately challenge a transgression ( but service providers are permitted to do this in order to maintain SSS)
• how to accommodate transmen so they don't suffer detriment
• Reporting of sex for safeguarding and criminal investigations.

This has cost one hell of a lot of time, money, stress, individual careers and for too many women: targeted abuse including death threats. But, because we've played the long game we have:

• Dedicated grassroots csmpaigners
• Dedicated organisations
• Highly educated (and pissed off) minds across law, journalism, medical sciences, sports and schools fighting this mess
• A press who is not afraid to talk about penises to politicians
• A dedicated body of case law that's going to be very hard to overturn and undo.

It's not over but we can stop the gender juggernaut from going any further. I am worried that the Greens might get in as part of a coalition at the next election and demand changes as the price of their support. However, both the Tories and Reform have identified this as an achilles heel and it won't happen quietly.

I feel like this guidance leaves transgender people liable themselves as individuals. It’s more clear that facilities designated single sex are exactly that, and you as an individual can be in no doubt whether or not you should be in there.

Is it not now entirely reasonable to make a claim of harassment against an individual when previously individuals would have said it was allowed on management policy.
Is there not now no justification for an individual to use the opposite sex facilities?

I'm interested in this point.

When a TIM is now continuing to openly use women's facilities can they as an individual be challenged legally?

On the contrary, I know many. And also a number of trans-identifying young men who are in their social groups.

It is fascinating to watch the body language and the level of cognitive dissonance, even distress, that the young women (and men) demonstrate. They may be able to deal if the word woman is used, but when the concept of the actual physical sex of the TiM comes into play - one example is when they decided to go wild swimming on the spur of the moment - it is clear that they are aware even if they cannot give themselves permission to express it.

So, how will this be handled on Woman's Hour which is about to start?

They really don't like this subject at all and I can't imagine Anita Rani being happy if she had in mind doing one of her Fluffy Friday episodes.

Nonnim you have asked this question twice, and I did respond to you yesterday, perhaps you haven't seen it:

"I do agree that on the face of it, it seems very unfair. The SC judgment I believe mentioned situations such as rape crisis counselling, and other such situations, as other posters have said.

However, I do feel that if you as a female are determined to be viewed , and believed, as a male, and have gone through as many administrative and even medical processes as you can to outwardly appear male, there will undoubtedly be social consequences. And, because we normally do not allow anyone under 18 to have these processes, women who choose to do this are adults, and must accept certain consequences as an adult.

My family member is one such woman, who now presents as male, and aside from the obvious " delusion " (my word for it) that she is now a man, also realizes that she probably will not be welcomed in female spaces, although she does not feel safe in male spaces. So she uses mixed-sex spaces or nothing at all.

It's very limiting, and she knows it, but she's an adult and made her choices. I worry for her, but it wasn't my decision to make."

Nonnim, you may not like the state of things (as I said, it's not ideal) but it is the law.

I understand your frustration, but continuing to ask us here how this can be justified will not get you a different answer. We cannot change the law here.

If he continually tries to use female spaces, yes, apparently we can challenge, but it must be in a "kind" way that doesn't constitute harassment. How we are supposed to judge that, well, that will be in the eye of the beholder, apparently.

So, we will continue to have to take legal action just to enforce our rights.

I think the voyeurism section would need to be looked at too. Now it seems that the washroom part is indeed private, and men aren’t allowed in women’s toilets due to their sex, it would seem this is relevant:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67

It’s the complexity of what is sexual gratification. If it is an ‘indulgence’ then I think there is a case for voyeurism.

Right, so now it's on Woman's Hour.

Is it scheduled to be? I wouldn’t put it past them to miss it out.

cross post 😂

You couldn't bring a claim against him under the equality act because it doesn't govern how private individuals must behave. But if the organisation failed to remove him you could make a claim of harassment against them.

As @Keeptoiletssafe says, he may be committing a criminal offence so it would be a case of getting the police to care.

The approach on Woman's Hour was to keep it factual and rather bare relying on a dry account by Alison Holt, social affairs editor and then leave it there. Very much a we-have-to-cover-this-but-let's-get-the-unpleasantness-over approach.

However, I do rejoice whenever I hear on BBC Radio 4 "transwoman is a biological male who identifies as a woman".

The law of unintended consequences mentioned in a pp is what resulted in the demand for gender self ID eventually leading to the current law and guidance. A massive own goal! Sad times.

Predictably disappointing. I think many orgs will simply do away with single sex amenities all together and provide so-called "gender neutral" facilities. For W&G this means dirtier loos, loss of female-only social space, more risk of cameras in loos, less loos, some women of faith unable to use public facilities.

too much money

too much space

I thought that organisations and businesses would no longer be legally permitted to strip away single-sex toilets and replace them with multi-stall gender-neutral facilities? The two strict legal barriers now prevent this, the building regs and that superloo restriction?
I'd assume that if an existing organisation tries to eliminate female-only spaces, they would face immediate legal exposure under the Equality Act? Religious exclusion, indirect sex discrimination and such.

Thank you, I confirm that I have now seen this. But it does not change my view that guidance that says that some women can be excluded from single sex services, on the basis of their appearance, will be challenged and found unlawful. And as a feminist I can’t accept that women can’t adopt whatever physical appearance they like, and that does not make them something other than women.
i think that probably is actual transphobia if we go down the path of well it’s your own bloody fault, piss off.

Yes, I agree with what you say about double standards, and certainly I don't think trans-identified males would be turned away from male support systems ( I don't think so?), so how can it be fair the other way?

I really don't know, but the SC decision made it crystal clear that masculine appearance could be detrimental to women who have suffered violence at the hands of men, so, in certain circumstances only, it would be lawful to exclude them (trans-identified females). It's not about how their appearance makes them not women; it's about how other traumatized women might feel/react in specific, high-risk services.

I don't think trans-identified females are required to be left without any services at all, but perhaps someone else knows more about that?

edited for spelling

How about a woman who turns up in a clown costume? Or insists on wearing a comedy pastic "I have an axe buried in my head" toy? Or drunk? Or in the middle of a psychotic break? Is it ok to exclude them from a counselling service?

I don't think it will be found unlawful as the Supreme Court judgment explicitly said that you could exclude people from the facilities of their own sex in certain circumstances. Service providers are required to make alternative provision if they want to do this.

I also hope it will be used in very limited circumstances such as rape therapy groups or similar

The code as I read it, doesn't police how biological women choose to look, nor does it allow them to be excluded for having a masculine or non-traditional appearance. While the verbatim text states that staff can use an individual's "physique or physical appearance" as a reason to intervene, the code explicitly warns providers that "it is not always possible to be sure of a person's sex from their appearance." It mandates that any check must be done with absolute privacy and sensitivity. A masculine biological woman cannot be lawfully excluded because she is female.
The guidance simply closes the loophole of self-identification. It clarifies that if a business allows a biological male into a female space, that venue legally loses its single-sex status and faces immediate lawsuits from female users for discrimination. It isn't "transphobia", it's just a practical legal mechanism that protects female spaces while instructing staff to handle boundary checks with care.

It is very difficult to write crystal clear laws based on outward appearances. Just like it is very difficult to write laws based on statements of internal feelings.

Doesn't these difficulties argue for a clear registration of biological sex that cannot be changed, except with the medical evidence of one of the DSDs whereby the initial registration was incorrect? If in doubt, show ID with name, age and sex and there is no more backwards and forwards.