House Of Communions, Early Day Motion tabled - Draft Code of Practice on Services, public functions and associations

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/65938

This is not a prayer motion, the only thing that could reject the draft guidance.

See here for more info https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/edms/

I do not think there is much chance of a prayer motion being voted on, given the timetables, who controls the timetable etc etc. But the chances are not zero.

She is thick as mince but yet the taxpayers are funding this grifter. So wrong.

@fromorbit

If Parliament does not disapprove the code by then 40 days after being laid, the UK Government will set a date for it come into force. The EHRC will publish it on its website. Once in force, the Services Code will be a statutory code that can be used in legal proceedings.

Thanks for this useful summary! Awaiting a date for enforcement now...

https://x.com/i/status/2074959125612581337

.

'The comments Nadia refers to from the High Court judgment in the GLP v EHRC case are “obiter dicta”: the judge’s non-binding observations on a side issue.'

Apparently Nads thinks that it’s ‘the most hardline interpretation’ of the law that including TIMs in women only services would be unlawful discrimination against all the other men who aren’t permitted on the grounds of sex.

Oooh she makes a very good point at the end, I think she’s also referring to the obiter remarks in Forstater that the TRAs cling to, that we’ve seen most recently in the DEFRA tribunal.

Ie him saying that the judgment wasn’t a licence to harass or misgender with impunity became “you are allowed to hold your GC belief but not to express it in the workplace because it’s harassment” to these people.

Wasn't sure what was the best thread for this

https://archive.ph/pXvcO

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/11/militant-trans-group-wes-streeting/

What will it take for Prevent to take an interest, or any organisation involved in anti-terrorism. Why Streeting in particular? Do they think he's still the Health Secretary?

This is so stupid and likely to be counter productive that I'm tempted to think it is being pushed by someone taking the piss out of people with trans identities.

@lcakethereforeIam worth adding it to this thread?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5466515-mail-carry-out-investigation-into-trans-terror-group-bash-back?page=5&reply=153015746

Crikey, has Witless seen the Road Traffic Regulation Act?
It provides zero space for nuance and incredibly punative penalties.

While we wait, yet again, does anyone know if section 13.182 (the erroneous section that claimed that sex was likely to be "special category data") has been updated so it now accurately reflects the law. This is something Sex Matters specifically noted as erroneous.

Is the text after "relevant systems and resources " (below) additional, and does it solve the issue that Sex Matters pointed out?

From Sex Matters: https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/what-is-in-the-new-guidance/

Section 13.182 says:
“Information about sex is likely to constitute special category data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and UK General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). Processing personal data should be done with regard to that legislation and the constraints of the relevant systems and resources.”
This is wrong in law.

Article 9(1) of UK GDPR defines special category data as “personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.” It does not include sex.

From the Code as laid to Parliament: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2026/EHRC_Code_of_practice_for_services_public_functions_and_associations.pdf

13.182 Information about sex is likely to constitute special category data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and UK General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). Processing personal data should be done with regard to that legislation and the constraints of the relevant systems and resources. Any information about the sex of individuals which is obtained and held by a service provider should be held securely and not be retained longer than reasonably necessary for the purpose of dealing with admission of
each individual or for ongoing legitimate purposes. Legitimate purposes may include, for example, equality monitoring or service planning reasons, in which case thought should be given to anonymising data, where possible. Access
to any personal information should be restricted to people who legitimately need access to it for those purposes. This should be done with regard to the constraints of the relevant systems and resources.

They can't amend it without it going back in front of Parliament for another 40 days.
It can just stay wrong.

"Enforcement " date: 5 August 2026

New thread on this :

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5554647-ehrc-code-on-single-sex-spaces-comes-into-force-on-5th-august-2026

Thanks @SingleSexSpacesInSchools

I hope we won't have to constantly fight over this one paragraph!

I've finally had a response from my LibDem MP about this. He says it's all the fault of women.

It is also deeply concerning that this guidance seems to have created a situation in which anyone can be challenged about accessing public facilities based on how another person perceives their gender identity from stereotypes.

We have heard from many women about their fear of the rise of "gender policing," like being accused of not looking "female" enough and being challenged to "prove" their sex to access female services and facilities.

Also, apparently the guidance isn't "inclusive enough" I mean, I thought that was the point but then I'm only a woman, what do I know.

@WalkingTheTightropeOfStreetCred
this guidance seems to have created a situation in which anyone can be challenged about accessing public facilities based on how another person perceives their gender identity from stereotypes.

You could try going back to him with "Actually, it was men breaking the law that created this situation " but sounds like he wouldn't listen anyway!

He seems to have bought into the What About the Butch Lesbians activist tactic. Tiresome and requires no extra brain power from him.

Oh well, he'll learn all about it when businesses in his constituency start getting sued. #SadTimes

challenged about accessing public facilities based on how another person perceives their gender identity from stereotypes.

Gosh they are so hard of thinking!

It’s exactly the opposite - we don’t perceive their ‘gender identity’ - we perceive their sex.

Having grown up in saner times when men could happily wear ‘female’ coded clothes and make up/long hair with no suggestion that they were anything other then men, I don’t assume ‘gender identity’.

I don’t even believe it is really a thing outside of stereotypes.

We have heard from many women about their fear of the rise of "gender policing,"

Yeah right. Maugham’s wife and a Stonewall employee aren’t ’many women’. Hard cases make bad law as they say - maybe when we’re certain of men not being in our spaces we will be less likely to verify that men are not present.

I'm a bit into a scathing reply about being how he's just a man he probably didn't grow up having to constantly risk assess situations due to the behaviour of men, unlike most women. And like most women, I don't care what the women I'm sharing single sex spaces with look like - I just don't want to be forced to share them with men, however they are dressed. And isn't thar the WHOLE BLOODY POINT of single sex spaces- that they are not inclusive? However once I've edited out the "you twat" and "okay dokey woken blokey" and all the sarcasm there's not much left 😂