It’s time to ACT to sort out the code of practice

We’re calling on the government to take the three steps that are urgently needed to protect everyone who uses or values single-sex spaces and services. We’re asking you to write to your MP demanding action. 

This email campaign has now finished – thank you to all those who wrote to MPs.

So far more than 2,000 people have written to their MP. This is the first of three blog posts about our asks. 

1. Revoke the old EHRC code of practice

Shortly after the Equality Act was enacted in 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission developed and published statutory guidance on how to comply with this new law. There is a code of practice for employment and another for equal pay, as well as a separate code of practice for services, public functions and associations. This was issued in 2011. 

All of this guidance is now out of date. The EHRC has revised the code of practice for services, public functions and associations, taking account of the Supreme Court’s judgment in April 2025 which made clear that the terms man, woman, male and female in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex.

This revised code of practice was delivered to the Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson MP, on 4th September 2025. It is not a new law or even a change to the law. What should happen is a simple process where the old code of practice is revoked and the new one is laid before Parliament, and forty days later it comes into force as guidance endorsed by Parliament. But she has not yet done this. 

Instead the government is claiming that a regulatory impact assessment is needed, which could delay the adoption of the new guidance by as much as a year. In the meantime, the 2011 guidance remains in force, even though it is legally wrong. 

Government guidance still says “transsexual people” should be treated “according to the gender role in which they present”

The 2011 guidance did a great deal of mischief. There is nothing in the Equality Act to support this interpretation, but the 2011 code of practice said:

“If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate [aim].”

The 2011 guidance also said:

“Service providers should be aware that where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.”

Again there is nothing on the statute about this. In any case, a policy based on the idea that some trans-identifying people may be “indistinguishable” from the other sex is unworkable in practice. 

All this has gone from the new code of practice, but the latest government excuse means that may not be published for another year.

Complying with the law is not a culture war

The Times reported a government source as saying that complaints about the delay were “put about to stoke divisive culture wars”. This has been a repeated refrain of this government. But expecting compliance with the law cannot be dismissed as a culture war; it is entirely reasonable. Meanwhile the failure to provide genuine male-free spaces and services is causing genuine harm. 

The law is already clear. Organisations which keep old policies in place allowing men into women’s spaces cannot rely on the 2011 guidance for legal justification, because the Supreme Court judgment has shown that it is incorrect. The EHRC chair, Baroness Falkner, has repeatedly said that no-one should wait for the guidance: they should comply with the law now. Any suggestion that waiting is the safer choice legally is misguided. 

If the Minister for Women and Equalities will not lay the revised code of practice before Parliament quickly, she must at least withdraw and revoke the 2011 guidance, which is providing advice which is now known to be unlawful.