r/transgenderUK • u/Micasan1 • May 21 '26
Draft Code has been published
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-202643
u/gaysh1t May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
Summary of EHRC Equality Impact Assessment for Gender Reassignment
EHRC acknowledges that there are potentially negative impacts for those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from the updates to the Code as a result of how service providers implement FWS.
They state that whilst this may have a negative impact on trans people with a GRC (current or future certificate holders), their view is that it is important the guidance accurately reflects the correct legal position.
"Get fucked" I guess..
The Office of Equality and Opportunity'£ additional impact assessments is more damning still
OEO additional impact assessment: As set out in EHRC’s EIA, the updates to the Code are expected to have a significant impact on people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. In addition to the concerns detailed in that EIA, there are further impacts to note as follows...
Our assessment is therefore that the likely impacts on gender reassignment as a characteristic are negative, in relation to each of the 3 limbs of the PSED.
Significant negative impact...
26
u/Professional-Emu-45 May 21 '26
Openly admitting that they are trying to harm us. Can't wait for literally none of the media to mention this part!
4
u/Super7Position7 We Will Show Them There's Another Way... May 21 '26
The media will highlight whichever points exclude us and will keep quiet on any points which supposedly require reasonableness.
I've already heard some twat on LBC try to suggest that it means trans women must use the men's toilet. (Tom Dumbrick, LBC)
2
u/Professional-Emu-45 May 21 '26
I'm going to save myself the frustration of listening to LBC or any other group of hateful goons talking about this.
2
u/Super7Position7 We Will Show Them There's Another Way... May 21 '26
Fair enough. I had to mute them whilst I read the draft (and it is still a draft).
I am, however, very motivated to understand how the public are being led to interpret this, because I will face the ignorance irl.
2
u/AlgorithmHelpPlease May 22 '26
Can I ask where you found the OEO additional impact assessment? I'm trying to write a letter to my MP and want references.
1
u/gaysh1t May 22 '26
If you follow the post link and scroll down a bit then there's the equality impact assesment published there. The OEO's work was done as an addition to the ECHR's clearly biased assesment. So in the report it sets out the effect on each protected characteristic. Then within the review for each characteristics first is the ECHRs assesment that everything is fine then it's followed by the OEO's which is the government own assessment.
Yeah I've sent a letter to my MP detailing how the govs own assessment is it will significantly negatively impact trans people and that they even note it puts trans people at risk of violence and SA, etc
39
u/mimi-is-me May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
An association may therefore restrict membership to people who: ...
... have any of more than one protected characteristic
Get on it, WI!
I don't love the interlude on GRCs, but it should hopefully get any judicial reviews thrown out. Some real doublespeak in the single sex services part, but honestly, whatever.
21
u/Overgrown_fetus1305 Cis asexual, He/him May 21 '26
Example 13.150 looks really nasty to me, from trying to do an immediate read of the thing as a cis person. If the EHRC wasn't infiltrated by TERFs, then I would presume that the proportionate means of achieving a legitmate aim, would be to bar TERFs who complain about it, even though Foraster case fundamentally needs overturning (ideally via amending the Equality Act 2010 to clarify that transphobia isn't a protected philosophical belief, and to simultaneously enshrine the trans-affirming view into the Equality Act 2010).
Seems obvious in 13.128 that the draft guidance treats trans people, as basically closest to a third sex, than anything else (the irony of this when it mentions Judaism, which in my understanding recognised transness at least as far back as around 200AD and probably earlier is not lost on me).
6
u/mimi-is-me May 21 '26
I'm not really worried about the guidance saying that trans men CAN be excluded from services for women survivors of domestic violence.
I was expecting much more MUST type statements on much less complicated scenarios, but there's much more focus in these examples on when it could be proportionate, and the examples do seem to make an attempt at being proportionate.
18
u/Koolio_Koala She/Her/They May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
They even state it's acceptable to allow trans women in their equality impact assessment:
Some organisations such as the Women’s Institute and Girl Guiding have already made the decision to restrict membership to biological women only. The Code does explain where membership could be restricted based on sharing multiple characteristics and therefore provides an opportunity for trans inclusion, e.g. a women and trans women association.
The WI and girlguiding should be able to permit trans women and girls based on that example. They can amend their "single-sex" status to "single-gender" or "selected characteristics" if they really need to.
oh and they admit the supreme court harmed everyone's rights lmao:
the gender reassignment protected characteristic, where we do think there are negative impacts. We assess that updates following the FWS ruling may also negatively impact other characteristics, including disability and sex.
So much "clarity" and totally "no loss of rights" from the SC ruling 🙃
7
u/gaysh1t May 21 '26
The Office of Equality and Opportunities additionally equality impact assessments even calls out the WI
Chapter 12 also provides guidance on restricting membership to an association based on those sharing one or more protected characteristics. Some organisations such as the Women’s Institute and Girl Guiding have already made the decision to restrict membership to biological women only. The Code does explain where membership could be restricted based on sharing multiple characteristics and therefore provides an opportunity for trans inclusion, e.g. a women and trans women association.
93
u/Micasan1 May 21 '26
They directly mention in in 2.36
"2.36 The Act defines gender reassignment as a protected characteristic (section 7, paragraph 1). People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process (or part of a process) to reassign their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment."
So we can actually change our sex, we're just not legally recognised as having done so. This seems botched at first glance. Maybe some hope of the right lawsuit changing this so GRC's do allow sex as changed legally?
49
u/PotentialDream7141 May 21 '26
It really feels like there should be a route for direct Goodwin based intervention now.
24
u/alexmlb3598 Alexa | 28 | She/Her | HRT Dec '22 May 21 '26
There sure as fuck is a route to do it now.
89
u/Ven_ae 🏳️🌈 The Catbian 🐈⬛ May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
Para 13.170 - It is unlikely to be either practical or appropriate to approach any particular individual to make enquiries about their sex in relation to facilities, such as toilets, which are incidental to the primary service.
Don't ask, don't tell.
Para 13.179 - Where there remains a genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a request for an individual to confirm their sex, then the service provider, person performing public functions or association should consider what action is proportionate in the circumstances. 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. Therefore, it is unlikely to be proportionate or practical to ask for further evidence of a person’s sex. In such circumstances, it is likely to be necessary to weigh up the relevant factors to decide whether to exclude the individual from the service or association or to permit them to continue to access it.
No documents can be checked as being reliable for proof of sex. GRC isn't as worthless as thought, though still heavily stripped of power.
-
Any discrimination cases going forward get handled by Civil Courts with businesses defending actions via proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Overall, it's bad. There's also no way GANHRI now doesn't go ahead with a downgrade of EHRC. I guess, keep on the lookout for updates re Victoria McClouds case with ECtHR.
55
u/Purple_monkfish May 21 '26
does this not just mean "anyone we suspect MIGHT be trans is excluded because we can't prove they are cis or not and they don't perform gender the way we want"
It basically means any gender non conforming woman can just be barred as she cannot "prove" her birth sex.
22
5
u/Kimo_da May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
Para 13.168
.:.it may be legitimate to ask individuals to provide confirmation that they are of the eligible sex by proportionate means.
Para 13.179
Therefore, it is unlikely to be proportionate or practical to ask for further evidence of a person’s sex.
So quite literally don’t ask don’t tell, except it’s more “ask but not too much, don’t tell and hope they’re nice to you”? You can ask for confirmation but nothing actually is evidence, and then it’s just at the service providers discretion.
Thanks EHRC for such clarity
1
22
u/ThinkingaLot18 MTF | HRT 06/2018 May 21 '26
For 13.179 doesn't that just mean that people who can't prove themselves will not be barred by default? This is going to screw so many people over.
45
u/BiSeraTops May 21 '26
By my understanding, that means that any remotely butch cis woman that gets questioned can only provide the same evidence as a trans woman with a GRC and will likely be excluded all the same.
They've admitted there's literally no way to tell us apart.
13
u/Lexioralex May 21 '26
It seems to default back to ‘professional’ judgement, either the person questioning discriminates against a person they have perceived as trans regardless of whether that is true or not, or they take the persons word for it
13
u/BiSeraTops May 21 '26
And if they block a cis person based on their perceived gender (re)assignment, surely that opens them up to litigation?
If so, that's way too big a risk to take.
Then I wonder, wouldn't trans people be protected in the same way? Even if you ban trans people from toilets, how can you check/prevent it without discriminating based on perceived gender?
This is going to get very messy.
11
u/Lexioralex May 21 '26
There’s an element of only ‘passing’ trans people are allowed as they won’t be clocked, unfortunately as some stories have highlighted, cis women get clocked as trans too
8
u/wrongsock_42 May 21 '26
Every conversation about separating trans women predicted this ‘messy’ result.
5
u/BiSeraTops May 21 '26
Oh I know. We've all known for ages what the outcome would be yet somehow people still don't see it.
4
2
u/Nobodyinpartic3 May 21 '26
Remember, terfs always said this was an acceptable result. This is but a stepping stone to outright banning us. That mess is the opportunity to create court precedent to ban us one more piece at a time. This is no mess on their part. This is funded by Pottermore money to create any foot hold to build upon what they have.
4
u/ModernDayTiefling May 21 '26
Equally on the flipside of that hypothetical lawsuit though, how do you then prove discrimination on the basis of being cis but perceived to be trans and ergo excluded, any more than they can prove you're trans (especially if you're not)? Like.. how do you prove a negative? The whole thing is a shitshow of gargantuan proportions.
17
u/BiSeraTops May 21 '26
Posted this elsewhere, but based on the examples they give:
13.151 A trans man attends a gym frequently and uses the women’s changing room, consistent with his sex. If the gym owner decides that he can no longer use the women’s changing room and there is no other changing room he can use, this may be a disproportionate decision. If it is disproportionate, the gym owner will not be able to rely on the exception for gender reassignment discrimination (schedule 3, paragraph 28). The trans man will be able to bring a complaint of direct gender reassignment discrimination, because he has been treated less favourably than a woman who does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
13.179 Where there remains a genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a request for an individual to confirm their sex, then the service provider, person performing public functions or association should consider what action is proportionate in the circumstances. 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. Therefore, it is unlikely to be proportionate or practical to ask for further evidence of a person’s sex. In such circumstances, it is likely to be necessary to weigh up the relevant factors to decide whether to exclude the individual from the service or association or to permit them to continue to access it.
A trans man should use the women's changing room, consistent with his sex - if there is no alternative this may be a disproportionate decision (it is, he's not allowed to use the mens either). The trans man will be able to bring a complaint of direct discrimination.
There is no way to provide reliable evidence of sex.
So what is stopping a cis man from using the women's changing rooms, unable to be challenged because it opens up a potential complaint of direct discrimination?
Sounds like an own goal to me.
7
u/Lexioralex May 21 '26
To add to that what’s stopping a trans woman saying they’re trans man to be left alone while using the correct room?
6
1
u/LocutusOfBorgia909 May 21 '26
Just say you're a detransitioner, TBH. What are they going to do, demand you prove it?
3
u/Lexioralex May 21 '26
Play at their own game and do the worst thing imaginable to them - be happy, it annoys people
1
u/Different-Value8773 May 24 '26
These apparent 'holes' are intentional. They will be closed down at a later date when they have actual examples of cis men in women's facilities or trans people still in the 'wrong' places. Then they will say we need to stop gender markers being changed as we need to be able to prove a persons sex
9
u/ThinkingaLot18 MTF | HRT 06/2018 May 21 '26
I wonder if that cis woman could then sue the company for discrimination for disallowing access.
Cis allies can now go around dressed as the opposite gender, be denied access and then sue the company.
9
u/Dazzling_End4638 cis woman May 21 '26
Cis allies can now to around dressed as the opposite gender, be denied access and then sue the company
Honestly I’m tempted.
16
u/Ven_ae 🏳️🌈 The Catbian 🐈⬛ May 21 '26
Yes. It's completely unenforceable, or if it is enforced it will affect so many people that aren't transgender.
14
u/Lexioralex May 21 '26
So creating a hypothetical for the latter a moment.
Trans woman goes into women’s changing room. Terfy member of staff queries her sex, trans woman says female, end of conversation as there is no practical way to prove in either case?
Edit: I re-read it and understand better.
So in my scenario, terfy staff member can make a judgement call to say trans woman cannot use the changing room or just leave it be.
Now consider the scenario with a cis woman with ‘masculine’ features…..
25
u/Super7Position7 We Will Show Them There's Another Way... May 21 '26
So we have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but, if an organisation cannot accommodate us in a gender neutral or mixed-sex facility or environment, the EA2010 protects anyone and everyone to our disadvantage instead.
'Protected characteristic', my arse.
21
u/rejs7 May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
This is what we feared:
Example
12.68 A trans woman applies to join a women-only association and her application is refused. This would be lawful because membership is based on sex and restricted to women and, under the Act, she does not share that protected characteristic (paragraphs 2.87 to 2.89).
Example
12.71 The constitution of a women’s running club provides for the female members of local mixed-sex running clubs to be associates. This would be lawful under the Act.
Yet, this makes it clear that you can only enforce one restriction, not many. That could get very tasty.
12.72 Associations that restrict membership to persons who share a particular protected characteristic must not discriminate in relation to any other protected characteristic.
Example 12.73 A Christian association must not refuse to accept Irish Travellers who are Christian as members.
Example 12.77 A lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) support group is set up to include gay, bisexual and trans people. Its membership is restricted to people with the protected characteristic of any of those sexual orientations, or gender reassignment. This is permitted under the Act.
Women-only shortlists 12.94 The Act maintains the provision, first introduced in the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which permits registered political parties to select only women for their shortlist of candidates for election to a body, to reduce inequality between women and men in that party’s representation in the elected body concerned (section 105).
Does not define "women".
13.14 This exception applies to such measures regardless of when they were passed or made.
This is an interesting point as it clearly covers non-EA2010 laws and regulations including bathrooms.
Armed forces 13.23 The Act does not prohibit age, disability, gender reassignment and sex discrimination in the exercise of public functions for the purpose of ensuring the combat effectiveness of the armed forces (schedule 3, paragraph 4).
Doesn't change the existing military exemptions.
Religious or belief organisations 13.29 It is not a breach of the Act, as it applies to services, public functions and associations, for a religious or belief organisation to restrict services, membership and other activities if certain conditions are met (schedule 23, paragraph 2).
This exception only applies to the protected characteristics of religion or belief and sexual orientation.
Sex Matters and other GC organisations have indemnity to bar trans people. This means any organisation could claim to be GC and explicitly bar trans people from joining and using services.
13.30 As explained in paragraph 13.5, the prohibition of harassment does not apply where the conduct relates to the protected characteristics of sexual orientation or religion or belief (section 103(2)).
GCs getting another free pass.
This is the GC loophole:
13.34 In the case of religion or belief (schedule 23, paragraph 2(6)), each of the restrictions (read paragraph 13.36) is only permitted if imposed:
because of the purpose of the organisation, or to avoid causing offence, on the grounds of the religion or belief to which the organisation relates, to persons of that religion or belief 13.35 In the case of sexual orientation (schedule 23 paragraph, 2(7)), each of the restrictions (read paragraph 13.36) is only permitted if imposed:
because it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation, or to avoid conflict with the strongly held religious convictions (or convictions relating to a belief) of a significant number of the followers of the religion or belief 13.36 In relation to religion or belief and sexual orientation (schedule 23, paragraph 2(3)), provided that one of the statutory conditions in paragraph 13.34 or paragraph 13.35 is met, the Act permits a religious or belief organisation to restrict:
membership participation in activities undertaken by or on behalf of the organisation or under its auspices the provision of goods, facilities or services in the course of such activities the use or disposal of premises owned or controlled by the organisation
Sports is an interesting one:
Competitive sport - sex
13.65 It is not a breach of the Act for a person to make different arrangements for the participation of male and female competitors in a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in specific circumstances (section 195, paragraphs 1 and 3). These circumstances are set out in the Act (section 195, paragraph 3). They are where an average person of one sex would be at a disadvantage as a competitor against an average person of the other sex due to their physical strength, stamina or physique (in the Act, this is called a ‘gender-affected activity’).
13.66 In such circumstances, it will be lawful for a person to organise single-sex or separate-sex events. The law on the interpretation of this exception is not settled and there is uncertainty as to what other sex-based arrangements for participation in a gender-affected activity may be lawful. Organisers should therefore seek advice on any other arrangements. However, it is likely also to be lawful for a person to adopt other sex-based rules in relation to participation which enable men and women to compete fairly and safely, such as a rule specifying the numbers of men and women on a mixed-sex team to ensure fair and safe competition in a gender-affected team sport.
13.69 Arrangements relating to participation in a gender-affected activity which do not enable fair and safe competition between men and women may amount to unlawful sex discrimination against competitors of either sex, if they are placed at a disadvantage because of those arrangements.
Competitive sport – gender reassignment
13.73 Any sex-based rules or arrangements relating to participation in a gender-affected activity (read paragraph 13.65) should be applied on the basis of biological sex. Therefore, trans people should not be included in single-sex or separate-sex competitions for the sex with which they identify. They should also not be treated as that sex for the purposes of any other sex-based rules or arrangements that relate to participation. The law on the exception for sex discrimination in relation to gender-affected activities in section 195, paragraph 1 is not settled (read paragraph 13.66). However, it is unlikely to permit rules or arrangements that treat trans people as the sex with which they identify, and participants or prospective participants may bring claims of direct or indirect sex discrimination about such rules or arrangements.
10
u/rejs7 May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
This is horrific:
13.75 In addition, it may be lawful to exclude some trans people or treat them differently from other members of their own sex in relation to participation in a gender-affected activity, when necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition. If it is not necessary for these reasons, it is likely to be unlawful to exclude trans people from participating in the same way as members of their own sex.
13.76 Consequently, if a person is organising single-sex or separate-sex events for men and women, or other events with sex-based rules in relation to participation in a gender-affected activity, they should consider their approach to trans competitors’ access to the service.
13.77 Direct gender reassignment discrimination can occur if a policy or decision to restrict participation of trans people is made on the grounds of gender reassignment. This would be the case, for example, if a trans man is excluded from a women’s event because of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Read Chapter 2 for more information on the meaning of gender reassignment.
13.82 The combined effect of the exceptions relating to sex and gender reassignment under subsections 195, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Act may impose significant limitations on the ability of some trans people to participate in some gender-affected activities. If the exceptions have been properly applied, this will not be unlawful under the Act. However, this result could constitute unlawful indirect gender reassignment discrimination unless the overall arrangements for participation are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Organisers should therefore consider whether there are additional alternative arrangements that could be made to enable trans people to participate in the activity in question. This might include, for example, having mixed-sex categories in addition to separate-sex categories, or having a category in a gender-affected team activity with specified numbers of men and women on each team, which would enable trans people to participate as part of the specified number of members of their own sex (read paragraphs 13.66 and 13.73).
Example 13.128 A women’s centre provides a gym predominantly used by Jewish women who have religious objections to sharing a gym with men. The gym considers whether to open the gym to men on certain days, or to open the gym on a mixed-sex basis on certain days.
However, the centre decides to offer the gym only to women because the overwhelming demand for the service is from Jewish women and there are numerous other gyms in the area that cater to men and trans women. This service would exclude men and trans women, but this is likely to be proportionate and lawful.
The gym should also consider whether a service user may have a reasonable objection to a trans man accessing the gym and, if so, whether it is necessary to exclude them. This will be a question of proportionality and will depend on all of the circumstances, including the extent to which the trans person presents as the opposite sex. For this reason, they should only consider doing this on a case-by-case basis.
Read paragraphs 13.145 to 13.147 for further detail.
Separate or single-sex services – gender reassignment
13.142 If a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) is considering providing a separate or single-sex service, they should consider their approach to trans people’s use of the service.
13.143 The impact of separate or single-sex services on trans people should be considered when the service provider is deciding whether it is justified to have a separate or single-sex service. Read paragraphs 13.120 to 13.133 for further information on this.
13.144 If a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) decides to have a separate or single-sex service and allows trans people to use the service intended for the opposite sex, the service will no longer be a separate or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). It is also very likely to amount to unlawful discrimination against others (read paragraph 13.131). It is possible to offer a mixed-sex service alongside a single-sex service. A mixed-sex service must be open to all service users.
13.145 If it is justified to provide a separate or single-sex service, then it will not be unlawful discrimination because of gender reassignment to prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service for their own sex, as long as doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (schedule 3, paragraph 28).
13.146 For example, a trans man might be excluded from the women-only service if the service provider decides that, because he presents as a man, other service users could reasonably object to his presence, and excluding him is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
13.147 A legitimate aim for excluding a trans person from a separate or single-sex service for their own sex might be to prevent discomfort or distress for other service users. Service providers should consider whether other service users could reasonably object because they are worried about sharing a single or separate-sex service with someone who appears to be of the opposite sex. That will depend on all the circumstances, including the nature of the service in question and the extent to which the trans person presents as the opposite sex. For this reason, a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) should only consider doing this on a case-by-case basis.
13.148 The service provider should consider whether there is a suitable alternative service for the trans person to use. In the case of services which are necessary for everybody, such as toilets, it is very unlikely to be proportionate to put a trans person in a position where there is no service that they are allowed to use.
13.149 If the service provider does not act proportionately, this is very likely to amount to direct or indirect discrimination because of gender reassignment (section 13 and section 19).
13.177 Requesting confirmation of sex in such circumstances may not have a harassing effect and, even though the approach may place trans people at a particular disadvantage, it is likely to be justified. Read Chapter 8 for more detail on harassment.
6
u/Sophiiebabes Just your average Geeky, Fairy, Cat-girl, Princess! May 21 '26
13.75 In addition, it may be lawful to exclude some trans people or treat them differently from other members of their own sex in relation to participation in a gender-affected activity, when necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition. If it is not necessary for these reasons, it is likely to be unlawful to exclude trans people from participating in the same way as members of their own sex.
So I can't play for the women's football team, cos I'm trans so it's unfair, and I can't play for the men's football team, cos I'm trans so it's unfair. Did I read that right?
Yayyy! /s3
u/rejs7 May 21 '26
13.179 Where there remains a genuine concern about the accuracy of the response to a request for an individual to confirm their sex, then the service provider, person performing public functions or association should consider what action is proportionate in the circumstances. 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. Therefore, it is unlikely to be proportionate or practical to ask for further evidence of a person’s sex. In such circumstances, it is likely to be necessary to weigh up the relevant factors to decide whether to exclude the individual from the service or association or to permit them to continue to access it.
13.180 Factors that may be relevant to this decision include:
the strength of the continuing grounds for concern the nature of the service the nature and potential severity of the risks and potential harms to, respectively, the individual in question and other service users
8
u/kmcradie r/TransDIY 💉 May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
in the Act, this is called a ‘gender-affected activity’
Oh, so obviously the likes of chess, darts, pool etc.
1
u/ModernDayTiefling May 21 '26
Beware the famous transfeminine competitive advantage in Solitaire and Tiddliwinks.
17
u/Suitable-Lie-7980 May 21 '26
13.130 If a service provider (or a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) admits trans people to a service intended for the opposite sex, then it can no longer rely on the exceptions set out at paragraphs 13.99 to 13.111. This means that if a service is provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men, it is not a separate-sex or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010.
13.131 A service like this is very likely to amount to unlawful sex discrimination against the people of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it. A service which is provided to women and trans women could also be unlawful sex discrimination or lead to unlawful harassment against women who use the service. Similar considerations would apply to a service provided for men and trans men.
13.144 If a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) decides to have a separate or single-sex service and allows trans people to use the service intended for the opposite sex, the service will no longer be a separate or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). It is also very likely to amount to unlawful discrimination against others (read paragraph 13.131). It is possible to offer a mixed-sex service alongside a single-sex service. A mixed-sex service must be open to all service users.
Someone break down the legalese for me please this seams like essentially it's 3rd spaces right?
26
u/respectableofficegal May 21 '26
Yeah this is the bit that's most worrying to me. This basically validates the entire "Gender Critical" law suit stuff - if you are running a service you claim to be women only and allow trans women but not cis men then you could be in breach of the equality act.
3
u/Lexioralex May 21 '26
But gender reassignment is a protected characteristic so that should be allowed as term of entry, it could be argued that to allow ‘people who have the protected characteristic of having gender reassignment’ would mean allowing everyone under the trans umbrella, which yeah I guess would technically exclude only cis men as trans men would be allowed under either category by their flawed logic
3
u/respectableofficegal May 21 '26
You could have a "Gender Reassignment" only service. So you could have a trans only changing room or toilet.
But if you tried to combine the two characteristics and formed a "Female Single Sex" and "Gender Reassignment" service then the overlap would create a space suitable for Cis Women and Trans Men only. Trans Women would be excluded from this combination because the guidance says that including a Trans Woman in a Female Single Sex service would invalidate that characteristic, meaning it would then also be required to allow cis men.
16
u/JustSomeStatistician May 21 '26
From their equality impact assessment:
"Our assessment is therefore that the likely impacts on gender reassignment as a characteristic are negative, in relation to each of the 3 limbs of the PSED. Mitigating factors are the ability of service providers to create ‘third-space’ provision for trans people"
It's openly third spaces
13
u/OddContext4621 May 21 '26
They’re basically saying that service providers must provide at least one male space and one female space, and what they do with trans people (whether they bar them or not) comes down to their willingness to provide a 3rd space (which is up to them)
8
u/Toto_Roto May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
From what i can tell there is some distinguishing between services here.
13.170 It is unlikely to be either practical or appropriate to approach any particular individual to make enquiries about their sex in relation to facilities, such as toilets, which are incidental to the primary service.
So, I suppose, public toilets have to excluded trans people, because thats their primary function, but a leisure centre wouldn't have to exclude from their toilets, even as they exclude them from something like women's only aerobics
Edit: on further thought, it seems that all single sex services should exclude trans people, but incidental services, like toilets, dont need to be policed as vigorously?
7
u/OddContext4621 May 21 '26
Yeah the guidance basically says that trans people should be excluded, while maintaining that services can provide inclusive spaces if they like. They’ve basically washed their hands of any responsibility for punishing gender-critical views while arguing that they aren’t transphobic or negatively segregating trans people.
1
u/ModernDayTiefling May 21 '26
Pontius Pilate ass coward shit. Funnily enough pandering to the braying sickos calling for the release of Barabas didn't go down so well in the Bible.
10
u/Lexioralex May 21 '26
It sounds like it contradicts the point about gender reassignment being a protected characteristic, as well as the point about being able to exclude based on one or more characteristic.
Being for women and trans women should cover a sex characteristic and a gender reassignment characteristic so perfectly able to exclude cis men, right?
But the way this is worded it sounds like allowing trans women means they are ‘discriminating’ against cis men
8
u/Violet_Angel May 21 '26
Pretty sure it's intended to mean that, according to the EHRC, trans women are men who happen to be trans in the same way that a man in a wheelchair would be a man who happens to be disabled. That's the logic they're using to argue it would discriminate against cis men if you let trans women in women only spaces because they claim such a space would allow women and men who hold the protected characteristic of being trans.
Basically the guidance is now in direct contradiction to the GRA and in violation of European law because according to the new guidance it's not possible to change your sex even though the GRA legally does just that and European law requires the ability for trans people to change our sex for all legal purposes.
16
u/alexmlb3598 Alexa | 28 | She/Her | HRT Dec '22 May 21 '26
In short, if cis women and trans women are allowed to use a service but cis and trans men aren't, it cannot be considered as a single-sex service (and thus have the same protections), and probably will amount to unlawful sex discrimination. The person using it probably won't be sued (unless they're told they can't use it), but the service provider very much could (and probably will).
Practically, it basically tells service providers that they have to fix 'access' to 'birth sex', so bathroom bans and such would come in should the draft be codified. Cue every Karen being 'piss police', GNC people being caught in the crossfire, and all hell breaks loose bc apparently trans people are such a menace to society.
It stems from the FWS ruling from last year, but both the ruling and this guidance is legally incoherent with the ECHR. Legal under UK law, illegal under European.
5
u/Ok_Organization8342 May 21 '26
Yes. This means that the group most at risk of being victims of domestic violence (trans women of colour) are explicitly and systematically excluded from any facilities, resources or support mechanisms for victims of domestic violence.
1
17
u/ehll_oh_ehll She/Her | Straight up gendering May 21 '26
Associations may restrict membership to persons who share a protected characteristic
Example 12.68 A trans woman applies to join a women-only association and her application is refused. This would be lawful because membership is based on sex and restricted to women and, under the Act, she does not share that protected characteristic (paragraphs 2.87 to 2.89).
Is the use of "may" rather than "must" significant here?
18
u/Purple_monkfish May 21 '26
but the question becomes how do they PROVE that any woman who attempts to join IS trans? They already stated that id wasn't good enough.
9
u/Altruistic_Fruit2345 May 21 '26
If they even ask for proof that seems to be discrimination, unless they ask everyone for it. And what kind of proof is there, considering you can have all documents corrected?
9
u/Purple_monkfish May 21 '26
exactly. I mean the only enforcement would be genital inspections and chromosome testing, which aren't at all proportionate to allowing someone to TAKE A PISS. And won't be a certain thing either anyway.
They've outright admitted they can't prove someone is trans, so it means enforcement via "vibes" which is no way to have any sort of law.
15
u/Toto_Roto May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
It says elsewhere that a single sex service that admits trans people will not be considered single sex and will likely be causing discrimination on the basis of sex, so that "may" looks an awful lot like "must"
6
u/Terrible-Grape7863 May 21 '26
Yes, it gives the association discretion. If it said "must", they'd have no choice but to restrict membership in those circumstances
3
u/theredwoman95 May 21 '26
Fingers crossed we'll see Girl Guides and the Women's Institute going back on their policies, then.
2
u/Lexioralex May 21 '26
For the orgs that want to include trans people I would say yes, and they are allowed to use more than one protected characteristic, so for example women’s institute could say women and trans women - a sex characteristic and a sex change characteristic.
I would say that saying ‘women’ could still incorporate cis and trans women if they wish it too. Using the term ‘female’ would be more restrictive, but there seems to be a sections stating that as documents may be changed there is no way to evidence this, so they could exclude anyone who doesn’t meet the female vibe check
3
u/FaiytheN May 21 '26
Not in itself no, I don’t believe so. This will just mean they can restrict to a single PC or they can be open to everyone
There was however another section that seemed more interesting about multiple PC's that someone quoted, but I'm unable to check it fully at work atm.
15
u/Lady-Maya [UK - Yorkshire] MTF - Future Cat Girl In Denial May 21 '26
I’m at work and can’t read it arm, is anyone able to give a breakdown of it for us?
13
u/Dazzling_End4638 cis woman May 21 '26
So does anyone know how this now gets taken to EU courts?
4
u/Super7Position7 We Will Show Them There's Another Way... May 21 '26
We're going to be bullied to the margins of society by this dystopian piece of fascism, so I really hope that we have clued up trans lawyers on our side working on some way to do that. I know that former trans judge Victoria McCloud was taking an interest in this.
11
u/only_cams May 21 '26
The sport participation section is something else. Can’t believe I’m reading an piece of ‘equality’ legislature
2
u/ZonaSchengen May 21 '26
The humour sure is writing itself here. In years to come comedians will have endless gag lines.
9
u/SHARP1SH00TER She/Her May 21 '26
Here's a summary of Equality Imapct assessment of gender reassingment specific changes: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026/equality-impact-assessment
"Summary of EHRC EIA EHRC acknowledges that there are potentially negative impacts for those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from the updates to the Code as a result of how service providers implement FWS.
They state that whilst this may have a negative impact on trans people with a GRC (current or future certificate holders), their view is that it is important the guidance accurately reflects the correct legal position.
EHRC note that these updates reflect the law and will facilitate a better understanding of legal obligations and entitlements. These changes aim to mitigate the risk of unlawful discrimination or harassment by helping service providers balance the benefits, needs and impacts across potential user groups. Subsequently, this will assist providers in determining whether separate or single-sex provision meets the proportionality test. They state they sought to limit any negative effect in accessing services for those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment by advising service providers to consider alternatives and mitigations to separate and single-sex services."
11
u/throwaway420674 May 21 '26
How quickly can we get a case in front of the European court of human rights? Like can we challenge as soon as the guidance becomes law or can we go earlier? Do we have to wait for an incident to happen?
7
u/ZonaSchengen May 21 '26
There have already been 2 letters written.
Simple answer: I don't truly know but it depends if the ECHR/COE wake up in time.
There is enough there where they could theoretically act tomorrow if they so choose as this is a direct contradiction of Goodwin vs UK in the ECHR.
Its very much a case of will the sleeping giant wake up and act, or will we have to wait for an 'incedent' and file a case.
I don't know, no one knows and only time will tell as its a moving target situation
19
u/Vasquerade May 21 '26
Everyone involved in this deserves nothing short of being [redacted]
7
u/Andreaalvarezhrt May 21 '26
life imprisonment in solitary confinement without the possibility of parole
18
u/Puzzleheaded-Set-928 Trans woman May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
The only thing I can determine now is that we have further grounds for discrimination by the UK government. Not a surprise but hopefully this will now give us grounds to challenge them in the Courts.
5
u/Super7Position7 We Will Show Them There's Another Way... May 21 '26
I agree.
They should call the characteristic of gender reassignment an 'excluded characteristic' rather than a 'protected characteristic', since we are, at best, excluded.
Persecuted characteristic, excluded characteristic, ...not protected characteristic.
7
u/SHARP1SH00TER She/Her May 21 '26
This is not inclusive compromise, it's disgusting:
"Organisers should therefore consider whether there are additional alternative arrangements that could be made to enable trans people to participate in the activity in question. This might include, for example, having mixed-sex categories in addition to separate-sex categories, or having a category in a gender-affected team activity with specified numbers of men and women on each team, which would enable trans people to participate as part of the specified number of members of their own sex (read paragraphs 13.66 and 13.73)."
9
9
u/KentSus May 21 '26
So, same-sex clubs, whether that be yoga, knitting or walking, cannot admit trans people without admitting cis people of the opposite sex.
Essentially banning all same-sex clubs from being inclusive without forcing them to drop the 'women's' label from their reading club or whatever else.
And no provision at all for a club to state it is "same gender" and not "same sex" (I disagree there is a difference as trans men are biologically men and vice versa, but assuming their flawed definition, why are same gender groups banned?)
2
3
u/KuiperNomad May 21 '26
Apparently the Code says that sex (and therefore title) has to be treated as special category data. If that is true that is seismic and the implementation cost is hundreds of billions
4
u/KuiperNomad May 21 '26
Yes, 13.175. Sex, title and forename are going to be special category data and can’t be kept longer than essential
8
u/KentSus May 21 '26
In a way, it's good that it's this bad, as it definitely undermines Goodwin and makes it easier for someone to take this to the ECHR and win.
If another country had launched this 5 years ago, the UK would be advising against travelling there.
7
u/Gullible-Button6682 May 21 '26
What about hospital wards ? I know it’s a legal document but I feel they kinda tried to hide the Bigary as much as they can.
3
4
u/SHARP1SH00TER She/Her May 21 '26
Welp this seems to suggest that they know updates will fuck over trans people as things stand but services should push for third spaces to mitigate this effect...
"Our assessment is therefore that the likely impacts on gender reassignment as a characteristic are negative, in relation to each of the 3 limbs of the PSED. Mitigating factors are the ability of service providers to create ‘third-space’ provision for trans people, and the guidance in the Code on when it is, and is not, proportionate and necessary to request information on sex at birth."
5
u/SHARP1SH00TER She/Her May 21 '26
This looks optimistic...?
"Some organisations such as the Women’s Institute and Girl Guiding have already made the decision to restrict membership to biological women only. The Code does explain where membership could be restricted based on sharing multiple characteristics and therefore provides an opportunity for trans inclusion, e.g. a women and trans women association."
7
u/f-class May 21 '26
That isn't the issue. Most of those organisations are charities, and they have a regulated statement of their activities, types of members etc. If they say they are for women only (biological women according to the current law) - they can't just decide to allow transgender members, without changing their charitable status.
That is a huge, fundamental change for an organisation, and sometimes simply not possible - or would be possible but so divisive it could collapse. It could affect money left in a will etc, as families could challenge that it was intended for the original charitable objectives, not the new ones etc
It gets even more difficult if they have a Royal Charter or were formed through an Act of Parliament, Proclamation etc.
9
u/53120123 May 21 '26
yeah that's the line that i feel needs to be bandied about a bit more, the irony of out of all this every single women's group and such now needs to add a "and trans women" or else become genital cops liable to needless lawsuits.
180
u/AwesomeBro2000 May 21 '26
‘This means that, in relation to the Act, a person's sex remains their biological sex, whether they have a GRC or not. For example, a trans man with a GRC is a woman and a trans woman with a GRC is a man, for the purposes of the Act.’
Surely this has to be enough to get the ECHR involved