in line with the supreme court ruling, the legal definition of sex now only describes that assigned at birth and cannot be changed with a gender recognition certificate. to quote the policy directly: "a trans man with a grc is a woman and a trans woman with a grc is a man"

ie. trans women can be lawfully refused from women's spaces because they are legally considered to be men

there's a very long section on guidance for competitive sports but basically, inclusion of trans women in women's sports can be considered sex discrimination against women (because of potential "physical advantage") AND sex discrimination against men (because inclusion of trans women means it is now considered a mixed sex space so men cannot be excluded)

this was p much exactly what we expected from the outcome of the supreme court ruling but now we have "official" guidance on how to apply transmisogyny 👍

anyone using a single sex space who is suspected to be of the opposite sex based off physical perception alone can be asked to provide confirmation of their legal sex

in most other situations, sex is a protected characteristic so this would be unlawful & discriminatory. the policy decides this is a valid exception however, despite explicitly acknowledging it disadvantages trans ppl

it then goes on to say that there is "no official record or document in the UK which provides reliable evidence of sex" because sex markers can be changed on passports, driving licenses and birth certificates. so if a person's confirmation of their legal sex isn't convincing enough, the decision can be made to exclude them regardless.

the policy is veryyy careful to skate around the topic of gender recognition certificates bc of their legal protection (non-consensual disclosure of a grc can be a criminal offence) but the change to the legal definition of sex and refusal to consider a grc proof of sex effectively voids it in this context anyway. heartbreaking for the ~8400 people in the UK who had to fight tooth and nail to get one in the first place

Alongside colleagues, I have tabled a motion to disapprove the Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for Services, public functions and associations. We cannot support it, and we have a responsibility to our trans constituents to resist it. This motion is currently the only available mechanism through which Parliament can reject the EHRC’s Code of Practice; if it is debated and passed within the 40-day scrutiny window, it would prevent the Code from being issued by the EHRC and coming into force. Please email your MP asking them to sign EDM 240. The Code will exclude trans people from services and facilities that they have long used without issue, putting them at increased risk of harassment and violence, and effectively pushing them out of public life. It ushers in an era of enforced segregation for trans people, the policing of which will be outsourced to service providers, including businesses, charities and public bodies. In the statement to the House of Commons yesterday, the Minister even suggested that where members of the public are unsure of someone’s gender within a single-sex facility, “most people will have the common sense to step in where necessary or, if they are concerned, to alert a member of staff.” Meanwhile, this guidance does not give clarity and confidence to organisations that want to be trans-inclusive. Its impact also extends beyond the rights of trans people. The government’s own Equality Impact Assessment warns that “women who are considered masculine may face greater scrutiny” and that disabled people could face adverse impacts. The Code represents a profound rollback of rights, which will affect trans people directly and erode the principles of inclusion, dignity and equality upon which all our rights depend. This guidance must not become statutory; the government should withdraw it and instead legislate to clarify and protect trans people’s rights, privacy and inclusion.

https://x.com/NadiaWhittomeMP/status/2061762711189414024