Coordinated efforts to ensure the EHRC code on single sex spaces is being followed after July9th

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Assuming it’s not shot by then - and that’s looking increasingly unlikely…(but not impossible)

I’ll assume that Sex Matters and friends will be keeping an eye out and making a show about some high profile non compliance.

But - perhaps we could make a difference, maybe wider and more localised perhaps? Local swimming pools, toilets, gyms that sort of thing.

would mean being properly informed about what the regs really mean - the universal toilet layout for example and what truly means single sex.

feel desperate to try and move the needle and this seems in my grasp.

Good idea. It might be useful to have a brief note of bullet points to c & p into an email pointing out to businesses, local authorities, schools, sports facilities etc the key requirements that the SC judgement imposes on sectors? I'm aware that when parents post on here asking about school safeguarding violations in terms of toilets etc, they get a range of responses - all helpful but needing navigating through to find the key issues.
Suspect it would need to be sector based but given the expertise on here, likely doable. Schools & changing rooms, toilets. Workplaces and toilets, changing rooms , showers. Local authorities etc?

The challenge would be to keep it accurate, sector specific and as brief as is possible with relevant links?

Just a thought.

Great idea. This is somewhere we could all make a difference.

Good idea.

Grassroots activity, holding local organisations to account can be v effective.

A great idea here.

I'm up for sending emails . But not for composing as others it would be really helpful to have something to cut and paste

Sounds like a good plan. Some short legally sound bullet proofed notes that we can send to organisations would be super helpful.

Toilets are a nightmare. There’s lots of reasons for this.

Historic reasons - it’s not that long ago that flushing toilets were invented. For a lot of people, these toilets were outside. I am not that old (!) but lived in a house with an outside toilet once, simply because it hadn’t been modernised.
When toilets were inside workplaces, it could be just men’s, as that was the workforce.
Same with public toilets and those in venues. Womens were added later. As for trying to find space for when disabled toilets were introduced, this was more problematical. Even now, many places don’t have correct facilities that meet regs.for those that need accessible toilets. Standards change over time too - the original sizes of cubicles were based upon the space needed for a man to urinate.

Regulation and legislation reasons -
These are all founded on biological sex and the knowledge that mixed sex provision needs obvious design adjustments for privacy. Mixed sex provision was never seen as a solution or panacea. Single sex design in toilet accommodation is always superior in terms of health and safety. Trying to shoehorn mixed sex toilets into single sex designs doesn’t work.

Economic reasons - regulations such as Approved Document T (2024) talked about toilet refurbishments and new builds. This was because of the financial impacts. If you looked at the EHRC impacts, economics were looked at too.

Document T and M discuss toilets designs as being separate sex (as in washrooms etc), as do British Standards. Then unisex as a room option. This has been in place for decades. It becomes an issue when people don’t follow the rules. If everyone had followed these rules, they wouldn’t have a panic now.

Building control - a mumsnetter told me that the mechanism for checking building venues were following regs was privatised a while back. Many just did their own designs. A bit like academisation with schools. Previously, you would have been discussing regs with your local education authority. Now you had headteachers designing their own pupils’ toilets.

Schools are under certain exemptions so haven’t followed rules that others do. There is an argument they should have followed them but Education Estates really liked experimenting with mixed sex toilet designs. It is interesting this year’s designs from the Department of Education are very different.

What brought everything into focus was the FWS verdict. For everyone that’s messed about, (schools particularly), they are now finding out.

That's a very good point. And it's why if anything is to be useful for a concerned parent, shopper, employee, changing room user etc, that only the key points are initially referenced. A succinct overview of the right to the relevant ss space and citing / links to the relevant legislation / guidance. All ready to be c & p into an email / letter that points out to the organisation how they're failing to comply with the SC judgment. It can never cover all the issues but hopefully will give people a start if they want to challenge

It's then up to organisations to do their due diligence / research if they've been foolish enough to follow the demands of transactivists promoting mixed sex changing (as the NHS has found out). Obfuscating, ideological responses may then need more detailed responses (we know how fond of whataboutery transactivists can be)

Again - just a thought. It may be that this already exists?

The Sex Matters worksheet is sound but just the fact it’s from Sex Matters may cause upset to some. ‘Neutral’ Approved Document T is as easy as it gets in England. But that’s only for toilets going forward. The irony is going forward is what some organisations are going to HAVE to do - changing toilets due to FWS rather than Approved Document T per se iyswim.

However, ADT omits to mention the door gaps even though they can be there for single sex designs C and D. That’s what ultimately my campaign is about because they make such a difference to outcomes. HSE and the Building Safety Regulator have said they can be there - but it appears they won’t think about changing the text to make it more obvious until the next edition. As it stands it’s implied but not stated. The reason given is they didn’t want ADT to become too long. My response is it’s only adding another sentence explaining advantages and it is at a critical time when changes are taken place. The actual reasons it didn’t get fed through first time are frustrating.

Apologies if I am incoherent! Working on 3 hours sleep due to football and petrol hedge-cutter neighbour.

The only news story I can find about this issue in the last 48 hours is https://www.thepinknews.com/2026/07/07/ehrc-trans-bathroom-2026/ so I assume the guidance is going in.

It does not automatically come into effect Friday

The government still has to set a commencement date by order

A useful comparison is the original 2011 Equality Act Services Code. The commencement order was made on 17 March 2011 and brought the Code into force on 6 April 2011, so just under three weeks between making the order and commencement.

100% confirmed the 40 days ends tomorrow, Thursday 9th July. the following process is then followed

• 5.9 The Secretary of State approved the draft Code on 5 May and it was laid before Parliament on 21 May. Following the laying, there is a 40-day period that allows for Parliamentary scrutiny of the new draft Code.
• 5.10 If there is no resolution within 40 days by either House moving a fatal prayer motion against the draft Code, the EHRC may "issue the Code under section 14(8).
• 5.11 If the new Code is approved, there will be a further two statutory instruments to complete the process:
• a revocation order made under section 15(3) of the 2006 Act ("the revocation order"): the 2011 Code must be revoked under section 15(3) by means of a negative procedure statutory instrument; and
• a commencement order made under section 14(8) ("the commencement order"): this statutory instrument commences the new Code. It doesn't require parliamentary procedure and requires only to be signed by the Minister.

No news on how long commencement will take, until it's commenced, no point in writing letters as it's not in force.