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

I have looked at the minutes and it appears the EHRC didn’t bring in the Building Control lot to actually see how this fits in with regulations.

Hence the term gender-neutral toilet. There isn’t such a term as gender-neutral toilet. There’s no definition or regulated set of parameters. They should have used the recognised term Universal Toilet.

Gender non-conforming women being challenged in women-only spaces is neither new, nor a big deal - it has happened to me 'Excuse me - this is the ladies' 'Yeah that's OK, I'm in the right place!' 'Oh sorry love!' and the sky didn't fall in.

There are probably very few women who look so much like men that a second glance at their height, gait, etc, or a few seconds of hearing their voice, will not reveal that they are female - just as not as many transwomen 'pass' as seamlessly as they think...

What weight should be given to edge cases like the very small number of women who have managed to make themselves look convincingly like a man?

We already have a rigid registration of biological sex, its called a birth certificate. While the Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows a person to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to change their legal sex, the courts have firmly established that a GRC does not grant automatic access to single-sex spaces. Under the Equality Act 2010 exemptions, a service provider is fully permitted to exclude someone based strictly on their biological sex, regardless of what their updated legal documents say .
The law mandates that business owners maintain a biological single-sex boundary and grants them the authority to challenge and evict those who breach it based on visual or behavioural evidence, with the birth registration system as legal support if taken to court.

Birth certificates can be issued in the wrong sex if someone has a GRC although saying that the majority of trans people don't have a GRC so would have original correct sex Birth certificates

You’re right about how the birth certificate system works, but a GRC does not act as a passport into women's spaces. The Supreme Court and the updated EHRC code have firmly established that for single-sex exemptions, "sex" means biological sex. Even if a biological male holds a GRC and a revised birth certificate, a service provider is still fully permitted to exclude them from female communal facilities to maintain privacy and safety. A piece of paper does not override a biological boundary.

You are 100% correct about the terminology. The law does not recognise or define "gender-neutral toilets." Instead, the official legal term used in the government's* *Building Regulations Part T is "Universal Toilet."
Part T defines a Universal Toilet under strict technical parameters, so first off it must be a completely self-contained, fully enclosed individual room with its own toilet, washbasin, and hand-drying facilities for single-person use. Shared handwashing troughs or those communal mixed-sex spaces are completely banned. Furthermore, the law states that these Universal Toilets may be installed only in addition to the mandated biological single-sex blocks, or when a building's footprint is physically too small to split into two separate rooms.
The EHRC doesn't need to consult Building Control because they are an equalities watchdog, not an architectural planning committee. However, the EHRC code aligns perfectly with these building laws. It instructs businesses that if a trans-identifying biological male needs accommodation, they cannot enter the communal women's space; management must route them to that "third space"—which is precisely the self-contained Universal Toilet defined by Building Control.

At least this is how I'm reading it. It's very interesting reading everyone's take on this.

The irony of the GRC argument is quite funny when you think about it. If someone is waving a certificate around to prove they belong in the women's room, all they are doing is shouting, "Look, I have a legally stamped piece of paper confirming I am a biological man!"

Bloody hell, you couldn't make up the levels of incompetence, really. Surely that would have been one of the first things they should have thought of. Instead we go into lala fairy theory land which is totally irrelevant because of other laws.

The EA2010 isn't a get out of jail free card for all other laws. It's not the only show in town. Presumably a health and safety audit will look at toilets as well for service providers?

Radio 2 now
Jeremy has used his soft voice already, TW making an impassioned speech and the Chair of hospitality appears to be in support of fully enclosed cubicles despite proven safety concerns.
TRA on now

Royal College Of Nursing calls for guidance on the guidance before it can possibly implement any of the guidance

https://www.rcn.org.uk/About-us/Our-Influencing-work/Position-statements/rcn-position-on-ehrc-code

It also shows a bias in the EHRC if they can’t actually use the correct terminology. I can imagine Building Control today saying, what’s one of these then?

To repeat what you said about design: A universal toilet is resistant to sound, a fully enclosed floor-to-ceiling room (not a cubicle) with a sink and drying facilities inside. It will usually require mechanical ventilation and has specifications on size and dimensions even down to where the 2 hooks are positioned above the floor line. It has a door that you can unlocked from the outside quickly and if the door is inwards opening it has to have the ability to open outwards, for the reason of someone collapses on the door. It will require a visual audio alarm for fire regulations. It opens directly onto a circulation space. This presumably is for the same reason as an accessible toilet - so people can keep an eye on who is going in and how long they are in there for.

The advantage of the universal toilet is complete privacy.

The disadvantage is complete privacy. No one can hear or see what’s going on. So if you have a medical emergency or are trapped you could be there for hours or days. They are subject to misuse. They smell and are scientifically proven to have more pathogens on the surfaces (when past occupants flush the toilet the plume reaches the sink and dryer). You can’t soak and run a mop around the whole floor as easily. There’s more items in which to place hidden cameras (which seem to be the voyeur’s choice method nowdays). If you run out of loo paper you can’t ask the person next to you for some!

The GLP say the universal toilet is the sophisticated choice for schools.

I say it’s dangerous. Schools have had to install alarms that are prompted by commands ‘help me’ or ‘stop it’ in these private, mixed sex designs.

You are completely spot on. Your breakdown of the building specs highlights exactly why making these rooms the default is a safeguarding nightmare, especially for children.
When you trap girls in a soundproof, floor-to-ceiling room with boys, you aren't creating "privacy"—you are creating a high-risk environment for bullying, sexual harassment, and illicit filming where no one can hear a child shouting for help. The fact that schools are having to install sound-activated panic alarms proves how fundamentally dangerous these designs are.
The only reason the universal toilet should exist is as an extra option to handle the exceptions, so that the main communal blocks can stay strictly single-sex and biological.

If a workplace is big enough though, will they be allowed not to offer some single sex ones?

https://order-order.com/2026/05/22/commons-offers-support-to-staff-after-government-issues-new-trans-guidance/

“Dear colleagues,
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has released new guidance for organisations, following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling on 16 April 2025 regarding the legal definitions of “men” and “women” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
The EHRC guidance will come into effect on 9 July if neither House disapproves it.
House Administration staff are working through the guidance, should it come into effect, so that we are in the best position to implement an agreed approach. As part of this, we will complete an Inclusion Analysis and engage with the Administration Committee and colleagues about any changes that are made.
We appreciate this is a challenging and sensitive issue. We are not alone as an organisation in seeking to ensure that we comply with the law in a way which aligns with our inclusive and welcoming culture. As ever, all colleagues and users of the estate should be treated with respect and in an inclusive manner, in line with the Behaviour Code.
More information will be communicated as soon as it is available.
Further support
Anyone who feels affected by recent discussions on this topic, may wish to use the following support services:
The Employee Assistance Programme provides confidential wellbeing support available 27/4, 365 days a year.
Mental health first aiders are available during working hours.
Links to further wellbeing support, including via the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service, are available on ParliNet.
Colleagues can also contact one of our Workplace Equality Networks.
There are also external sources of support available:
LGBT Foundation Helpline (call [REDACTED])
Switchboard LGBT+ (call [REDACTED])
Trans Support Groups”
The email sent to MPs does not provide information about “further support” and external services. The link to “trans support groups” goes to Trans Unite, which lists extremely controversial trans organisation Mermaids as an “organisation we love.” The Commons dangerously close to taking a side on the culture wars there…

Wow. And there was a whole year.

Thank you.

Adding universal toilets isn’t a ‘neutral’ thing to do. You could actually be designing-in crime.

Traditionally the one unisex toilet in schools was outside reception, for everyone including visitors so it could be kept an eye on.

Well it's a lie about the 'increased hate' towards trans people. I call bollocks on that. It's the women getting raped in NHS wards. I note no mention of that actual harm. Just hurty feelings of men they're concerned with then?

Basically they want to try and word salad their way into offering up women's bodies for men's fetishes is my interpretation of that statement.

There was a mother who called saying her son knew he was really a women when he was 2

And thats how we nail this thing

You have shown me and everyone else so much about toilet designs @Keeptoiletssafe - we can prove universal toilets are more dangerous, more expensive and take up way more room

We can use the danger issue as the "no you don't" for the very few orgs who will try to get past both space and cost

Agree @Keeptoiletssafe about the bias in the language which suggests a political agenda. It would have been quite easy to use the correct language according to the building regs.

Burnham now supports Supreme Court and code:
https://x.com/geri_e_l_scott/status/2057791734952628427?s=48&t=BhQtR1Qh_r5onq7KsMOKrw

New: Andy Burnham has backed the EHRC guidance on single-sex spaces and said the Supreme Court ruling on biological sex must be implemented.

Burnham told journalists at his campaign launch in Makerfield that his views had changed since previous comments made in 2022, and he said: "I think the time has come to take the Supreme Court ruling and the guidance and implement it. But to do it in a way, obviously, that protects those spaces, but does not marginalise already marginalised communities."

He said: "Let's implement the guidance, but to do it in the fairest and most compassionate way possible."

"We've got to move into the next phase and not constantly re-running the arguments. I think Britain has done this too much in recent times, you know, with Brexit and other things. We've got to stop arguing with each other."

That would men the EHRC talking to the building regs people which they very much did not

Oh ffs.

They just have got to cope with this idea - which seems overwhelmingly difficult to them - that women have to have a usable space too and this includes the ones who cannot use mixed sex spaces.

How sad this makes men is irrelevant (and it always is men, there are no women having nervous breakdowns about not being able to force women to choose between undressing with men or losing all access to resources).

If this guidance stated that people with trans identities either use their sex based provision or go without any access to resources or society at all, there would - and rightfully - be an outcry. It would be considered wholly unacceptable to put this pressure on people, to deny their beliefs and feelings, to leave people without resources.

This has to be equally applied to women. That is all. All women bloody want is a usable space for everyone.

And this needs to be the answer to every sad faced interviewer and all the whingeing we get here.

You would not - rightfully - accept this happening to a man with a trans identity. Why are you ok to drop that burden and inequality on women?

On a bloody binary sexed basis.

Sex Matters podcast on the code

Very fresh