Would stricter single-sex space guidance better protect women's rights?
The Equality and Human Rights Commission updated its Code of Practice in 2026 after the Supreme Court ruled that sex in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. Single-sex spaces such as toilets, hospital wards and rape crisis centres must now be organised by biological sex where this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim such as privacy, dignity or safety. Trans people are directed to gender-neutral alternatives or facilities matching their biological sex, while remaining protected from discrimination under gender reassignment. Women's groups argue this upholds sex-based rights, but some say gaps in implementation leave women vulnerable.
12 Opinions
The clue is in the name. Women's, female only sports, toilets etc. No men should be in there especially ones that think they are women. Women use the men's toilets without any issues if they need to but men in women's will always causes problems. The trans should have their own toilets, sports etc.
The question is poorly phrased. Guidance is not legally binding, it merely describes how to comply with the legislation. So “stricter guidance” doesn’t make any sense. If orgs are not complying with the law they can be challenged. If Guidance goes beyond what the Act intends that too can be challenged. I suspect what the author intended was should the Act itself be amended to be stricter/more prescriptive, to which the answer is always yes. Blame sloppy primary legislation.
Clearly guidance is needed because people are either still confused about the law, or willfully ignoring it.
It's pretty clear this has nothing to do with women or safety, and everything to do with banishing transgender people from public spaces. No doubt it will be enforced selectively and hurt ANYONE slightly gender non-conforming in the process.
Men dressed as women are still men.