Good Law Project suing the EHRC and Bridget Phillipson - letter before action

I would love to not have to talk about toilets. My family are fed up too! However, the design of them has been getting worse for years which means the risks of coming to harm in them has increased. If single sex loos mean single sex loos then the designs will change from becoming enclosed and everyone will be safer. Especially children, women and medically vulnerable. It is the very best time to talk about toilets as, if I can get these points across in the next few weeks, it could prevent assaults and save lives.

Yes, but also because it's an everyday activity that everyone does and it's pretty much binary, and that means TRAs can make it personal to everyone. No handwaving or "other people's problem", every trans person has to decide every time whether they are going to pee with their body or their deep inner soul.

It's also why pronouns amd language appropriation have become a big deal. They force women to make an immediate and personal decision between being "kind" to trans identifying people's ideas of identity and maintaining the truth of their own experiences just to be able to speak about a trans person.

I Really believe that the focus on toilets is a distraction. It frames the gender critical movement as petty, and side-steps the real concerns that women have allowing men into a whole range of vulnerable women’s spaces, and roles that allow intimate touching of women against their will.

Is that true? Thousands of women have had to have mastectomies because of cancer. I cannot believe they would be challenged in a changing room.

Well no, because they're women. So why would anyone challenge them. This doesn't make any sense. Even if they were transmen, they'd still be female and entitled to be in a female only single sex space.

He doesn't understand the law does he.

I’m back ! Quick reader? No, skimmed it , all 32 pages, and to save anyone else the trouble it’s all about toilets. Toilets, toilets, toilets.

And irritatingly uses the word trans as an adjective “trans woman”, “trans man”.

Don’t get me started on the work experience intern who has proudly signed the letter , could they not find a single person prepared to sign their actual name on behalf of “themselves”?

More cake please.

100% this

From the podcast interview he talked about a fight against authority “breathing saliency” into his lungs. I’m assuming any of his actions aren’t so much about the women so much…. Maybe we need to find him a new campaign to help him feel relevant again?

Sure, I can feel sorry for her for having cancer. But she is just as complicit as her husband and has used her mastectomy to push against sex realist views herself. So any sympathy I have is severely constricted by that.

If you imagine 'women' relates to a - what was the phrase? A 'swirling miasma', or am I misremembering? Then yes, 'woman' is a concept that consists of sugar and spice and all that's nice, and has nothing at all to do with base biological issues.

It's quite comically squeamish, the 'genderist' idea of women. All perky tits, no inconvenient blood.

I think this (probably false) concern for women being challenged as 'looking too male' to go into a female space comes from the thought that someone being 'misgendered' feels deep hurt.

Which probably is the case if you are male and you want everyone to treat you as a woman.

Thing is, my knowledge that I am female does not need any external validation. If someone thinks that I am male, they are wrong and I am right. If ever it came to 'proof' they would be wrong and I would be right. If I was briefly challenged and the person then realised their mistake (which is overwhelmingly the most likely scenario) I would reassure them that I too wanted female spaces to be exclusively female. It would not affect the rest of my day in the slightest.

If you are female, I really don't see that 'being challenged' assuming the person challenging has the best of intentions to keep female spaces female, is that much of a problem.

Like I said. It's like he doesn't know they law or the way it works in the UK. He isn't a foreign agent is he ?

Thinking about it - I guess the founding view is that men are real people.

Women, not being men, aren't real people.

But imaginary women work like a double negative - the non-reals cancel out and they become real people again.

Hands up, I am a shallow, cynical old besom who is far too quick to make a judgement, I managed to read as far as the phrase

“on behalf of ourselves”

and metaphorically fell on the floor laughing.

Really? A serious challenge to the highest court in the land, purported to come from educated legally trained people, and in the very first clunky paragraph they display their ignorance of a basic English grammatical convention which - in my very humble opinion - doesn’t bode well for their grasp of very complicated legal arguments.

Going off to pedant’s corner for a piece of cake and some strong coffee so I have the strength to read the rest of the letter.

If you really want to add fuel to the fire

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1170.html

Farrukh Husain was admitted as a solicitor in 2014. He became active on
the social media site then known as Twitter, using an account with a
profile which identified him as a lawyer. In several tweets, he identified
himself as an employment solicitor. In May 2021, the Solicitors'
Regulatory Authority ("SRA") received a complaint and reviewed his Twitter
feed. It started an investigation and later brought disciplinary
proceedings in respect of tweets which it said were offensive and in some
cases antisemitic, and about comments made in correspondence with the SRA,
which it said were offensive.

He has a very vivid imagination, and I'm content to leave it at that.

Wondering about the psychology of having a huge amount of concern for imaginary women in imaginary situations, but no concern for real women in real situations.

I'm going to feel sorry for her on the grounds of being a fellow human on whom I wouldn't wish cancer.

While continuing to wonder what kind of woman remains married to one of the most obnoxious misogynists I can think of.

That would be the wife that works as a consultant for sewage pumping Southern Water and has previously worked for Crapita. Yea, my sympathy is limited.

JM’s positioning in the mastectomy posts is that of wanting to protect the feelings of women when they are missexed and concern that this could lead to them having trouble accessing women only spaces. We too are worried about women’s feelings (not just limited to any upset if they are missexed) and to women being able to access women only spaces. We seem to have found some common ground!

Does this mean that if we resolved the issue of women being inappropriately challenged about their right to use female only spaces, JM would be happy?

He is throwing everything and the kitchen sink at trying to justify why the SC ruling is wrong.

He pulls in those who have little interest or skin in the game, as they buy into what, at a glance, could appear to be an injustice. I guess this is why he keeps going. That and the Japanese Soldier issue.

It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and at some level he knows this.

He has a very vivid imagination, and I'm content to leave it at that.

I know it's superficial, but so much of this issue is based on the idea of the passing trans person. And if might make more sense if they were people who were a bit androgynous looking to begin with. Or, I know there are tall and broad women out there, so tall and broad transmen must be a possibility.

But - purely anecdotally - that rarely seems to be the case. It's often small petite women who aren't remotely masculine who are convinced they'll pass as the opposite sex. Same as the classic big burly MtF transitioner. And that triggers a response where our brains can't believe what we're supposed to see.

I wouldn’t feel too sorry for Mrs Maugham. Cut from the same cloth as her husband.

Women who have had mastectomies don't suddenly look like men.

This is desperate stuff from JoMo. Awful. His poor wife, having her breast cancer used like this.

Reminds me a bit of Billy Bragg a couple of years ago having a hit of the vapours about Dahl's The Witches and imagining that the "kids at school" would be calling your Mum a witch if she had to wear a wig after chemo. Arguing with Suzanne Moore iirc. Utter nonsense. (I've been in that position and the "kids at school" with D1 clubbed together to buy me flowers & a card.)

I'm intrigued by the assertion that this is happening to thousands of women up and down the country every day.

On what is he basing this?

Is that true? Thousands of women have had to have mastectomies because of cancer. I cannot believe they would be challenged in a changing room.