EHRC code on single sex spaces comes into force on 5th August 2026

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/788/pdfs/uksi_20260788_en.pdf

No male just leaves the female toilets and leaves. He's a predator by entering a female only intimate space.

Yes and the provider can then on that basis ban the male from their premises for good. So win win.

Someone needs to learn the meaning of feminism

: the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes

They may have taken one punk boot to the head too many if they think advocating for a men right to supersede women's rights is 'feminism'. 🤯

Oh 'stay at home' is the very misogynistic dismissive and sneering reason the Urinary Leash came about, and why our foremother feminists fought for those female only spaces. No, we won't 'stay at home' because a few femphobic misogynist bigots want male supremacy and rape survivors to become traumatised. If transwomen are too afraid of entering the males, THEY can stay at home! We won't allow misogynist femphobes to appropriate feminism which advocates for the female sex, not any males! Time that your meninism was destroyed once and for all, and since the overwhelming majority of the public agree with us actual feminists, we are winning the war.

On the move so couldn’t respond until now.

OK this is a very good question to answer as it shows the answer is to do with the environment that is created around the toilet cubicle.

Firstly, obviously, would anyone know about hormones or surgery? You must know that can’t work practically.

Secondly, there have been men that said they are women at the time of being in the women’s toilet and have committed crimes. But they were prosecuted as men as they were back to identifying as men at that point. There have also been men who identified as women during the crime in the women’s toilet, and whilst after it, and were prosecuted as such.

As for being prosecuted for using toilets for sanitary purposes only (what they are there for) then leaving. People who are on SHPOs can be reprimanded for using the toilet in the normal sense, because people are often banned from using particular design of public toilets, when they have committed offences. They might have an order that lasts several years - in can be 15 years or more.

So that’s the usual way men (it’s always men) would get in trouble for using the toilet in the normal way. It could be a women’s toilet, a unisex toilet or (very unusually) a men’s urinal. However, irl it usually is because they reoffend and it gets picked up that they are breaking the conditions of their SHPO.

I am pretty confident no other man or woman has been prosecuted for using the wrong sex toilet for sanitary reasons. I think the lawyers in recent cases would have referred to that. Why would this situation go as far as prosecution? Would that be a good use of time and resources when there’s so much else going on? I know for the consultation for Document T most of responses cited Stonewall. When you look at the report they referenced there was anecdotal evidence of a transwoman saying they have been verbally abused and physically abused by women. This was being shouted at to get out the ladies and then two women then tried to push the transwoman out when the transwoman shouted back and refused to leave. No one was prosecuted as far as I know. The consultation answers were so focused on gender that the analysis threw up some nonsensical results - there seemed little support for disabled people having safe toilets or boys safety.

The prosecutions data I have got are for men sexually abusing women and children and occasionally other men in toilets and also for men being voyeurs (including the increase in hiding cameras which is also a male crime). I would always recommend male and female toilet cubicles have floor-to-door gaps and space above a standard height door as this is a preventative measure against crimes happening. It also aids supervision in the event of a medical emergency, and assists cleaning and ventilation.

Perpetrators don’t like witnesses. Purpose built ‘gender-neutral’ cubicles don’t have door gaps because everyone seems to agree they don’t work in a mixed sex environment. But then look at this in conjunction with other data. For example, in schools various reports (BBC, Channel 4, Ofsted, Everyone’s Invited, Academic studies) put sexual assaults at high levels. Rapes have even been said to be reported at a rate of between 3 to 5 per school week - though no one seems to be looking at this and finding out true figures. As an ex-teacher this is horrifying. If you have a look at where this is happening inside a school it has to be in places where both sexes can legitimately have access and can’t be seen. And these are the numbers reported - not prosecuted. That’s very different.

I maintain most men and women are good people, it is irrelevant how they identify, and if they witnessed something bad happening in the toilets they would assist the victim or get others to help. But in mixed sex toilet environments, that’s more difficult because of the design.

So do you see why single sex toilets are so important yet?

(edited to make it clearer hopefully).

I don’t think it’s clear that’s the case at all. You say the law has always been this way, including before the Equality Act passed, so why are there no cases proving this already? Trans people have always used opposite sex spaces and the ones just there to have the facilities have not been a problem.

Oh give it a rest, love. Trans people just need to use the loos that align to their biological sex - it's that simple as well as being the law. We don't care what names you want to call us.

I am a Civil Servant. At the moment my department is intending not to provide a method of ‘policing’ any changes. This guidance originates from the Cabinet Office. They are completely captured.

Because if one were engage the brain for even a short period of time, it would be recognised that we've been putting up with "Stonewall law" for quite some time now, where there was - at best - ambiguity as to whether transitioning or being a GRA holder meant a man was "actually" a woman in the eyes of the EA2010.

Only recently has it been clarified that a) this isn't the law and b) it never was. There simply hasn't been time for court cases yet.

If you believe that transwomen - trans identified men - have never been a problem in women only spaces then I can only assume you've been living under a rock or wilfully turning a blind eye. And that is to completely disregard the WOMEN who find even the presence of trans-identified men in their spaces (regardless of what they are or aren't doing there) as a problem and a barrier to their own use of those spaces. That their use of opposite sex spaces has been tolerated - willingly or otherwise - up until recently is now irrelevant.

Where’s the evidence for that?
What I do know is, as a direct response to more toilets being in a mixed sex environment, is that designs have changed a lot. We started having a wide range of unregulated designs and more problems. That’s why the Government responded with ADT.

Then they’ll get taken to court.

Literally no one thinks you’re a feminist, mate. You can stand down.

Presumably it won't be long before women civil servants have to take another case when they're compelled to share workplace changing rooms, showers and toilets with men?
Can't see the civil service being able to successfully argue this in court but who knows?

The JKR Women's Fund might come in handy yet again...

It’s a shame they didn’t manage to shut down the civil service SEEN, isn’t it?

Making changes when many are on holiday and the main topic of conversation will be the Clacton by-election is poor timing. Should have been earlier. Well had Boris Johnson cared about women, it would have been six or seven years ago and a Supreme Court ruling would not have been needed.

What about before the EA and ‘stonewall law’? The point I’m trying to make it that trans people have been using spaces for decades largely without issue or being noticed. That probably isn’t going to change.

Oh good lord doesn't it get tedious having the same plopped nonsense day after day?

Clearly by those who have never bothered to read anything here or try to understand it, and demonstrate loudly and clearly they don't care about women, or women's voices, or women's diversity, or women's needs, or any women who are not in some way useful to men. Bruv, you ain't no feminist. You might identify that way, but you're not passing.

And incidently, the women you're trampling for these (mostly straight, white, able bodied, affluent, well educated) men?

The ones who need single sex spaces the most hold large numbers of women who are disabled, from minority cultures, backgrounds of immigration, minority faiths, women who have suffered trauma and VAWG, and are gay.

So frankly identifying as politically left at the same time as declaring these groups subhuman and not entitled to rights like good, proper humans? You're somewhere to the right of Thatcher and hanging out with Disraeli and his beliefs about indigenous people needing forcing into the proper ways of life of their betters.

But that’s a) deception, given that they aren’t meant to be there, and b) only available to those men (TW) who pass, which is a tiny minority. I agree more women pass, but most of them don’t either.

They will be forced to be even more vocal and demanding, as you say most people will be focussed on other things.

Blimey, you're determined to wring the last drops out of this non-argument, aren't you?

I couldn't give a tuppenny fuck if trans people have been using opposite sex loos since loos were invented. They shouldn't have used them before and they definitely can't use them now.

What are your punk boots going to do? Stop women reporting men in women only spaces? Stop management telling the men to leave?

Oh stop with the nonsense. There were many many issues. Katie Dolatowski, Dr Upton, etc. Women DID notice. Hence the pushback.

Feminism does not include males. Thats what the fem bit means. HTH

I have written a really long reply at 16.04 to @MakesNoDifference so hopefully will get an answer as I would like to hear the counter argument.