Good Law Practice launch a EHCR/Supreme Court challenge over toilets

They want to take a trans case to the ECtHR. I don’t know if that’s possible with this one but that is their ultimate goal I think.

RIP Goodwin
RIP Croft

Literal violence.

100%

I agree with what they are trying to do but I disagree that Goodwin and Croft are relevant.

The Supreme Court states that Goodwin was satisfied by the GRA and is therefore dead. And the Judge in this case has already said that Crift is dead as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

And the cleaner of the opposite sex argument actually works against the GLP, as they always put a sign up to warn users that there’s someone of the opposite sex in there, so they can make the choice whether they want to use the facilities in the presence of the opposite sex. It actually underlines that everyone knows that some people do not want to, and possibly even cannot, share facilities with the opposite sex.

Indeed. And still they try to sweep the inquiry, that they never wanted, under the rug.

It is not where the money comes from that is my point though. I totally agree barristers must represent the most appalling people and do the job of defending them to the best of their ability. It is the only way we can have justice. I mean the arguments they use - arguments that even a first year law student would know are false. That they must know the judge can only dismiss out of hand with incredulity that they even raised them. That they may not recognise the idea of women’s dignity needing protection because they do not understand the concept of dignity.

The rapes and assaults continue, it’s not a historical event.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c709ypzr8xlo

Fremdschämen v schadenfreude!

As can be seen by the thousands upon thousands of girls raped by grooming gangs - and yet not enough to stop the feeling of those men being considered more important.

They're trying to do two things.

Force an interpretation of the SC ruling that forces a corresponding change in the guidance.

Get a declaration that the Equality Act, as now interpreted by the SC, is incompatible with the HRA.

A declaration of incompatibility doesn't force HMG to do anything, but it's a signal they could get an adverse ECtHR decision later on (which also has no enforcement mechanism - see prisoner voting rights).

So Goodwin is still relevant and I can see why Croft could be too. Disapplying the GRA to the EA has taken away a lot of what was supposed to be a solution to the problems of those cases.

There's plenty of barristers who don't care where money comes from. Women's dignity really won't be a top concern for many.

they’re not doing the cosplay though, which invalidates their girly feels

May be that is why they struggle with the concept of SS spaces to protect women’s dignity (as well as safety and privacy)?

Those claiming to be the opposite sex would have a better argument if they said using disabled facilities was discrimination against the disabled. As they never consider anyone's rights but their own it wont have occurred to them.

Reading the GLP barrister’s arguments took me back to the first time I saw a scolder take over a thread here. I was really interested to see the other side’s arguments as I was concerned my personal circumstances (parent of trans identifying teen) may be blinding me to other perspectives. I was flabbergasted to find that they had NOTHING. In fact I was doing a better job in balancing views in my head with residual “be kind”

My jaw was on the table last night when reading the TT notes- the sheer incoherence and desperation of the arguments - and my expectations by now were already through the floor.

Much like the arguments a small child might make when trying to avoid sharing a treat with a sibling

Here is the direct link to the afternoon session.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x0Aq_P-8koYT-5Cvrp4ltcm3tLo3rvJW/view

All documents available on their substack here:
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/good-law-project-and-others-vs-the

Tribunal Tweets published their reporting last night as some of you are aware.

Here is the direct link to the morning session.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tiez0X8g3QHyWm6N83TGkMb0PLHEcr2b/view

All documents available on their substack here:
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/good-law-project-and-others-vs-the

Cos every court day is a pay day for a barrister.

You assume they are there for moral reasons rather than because it pays the bills.

I agree, and I hope that R will have time to address it. If she is legally biologically female but looks somewhat masculine (eg like Semenya) then her employer was always allowed to ask her not to use the ladies but not required to. The SC ruling and guidance clarified this but didn't change it. Her previous use establishes a precedent and there's no new reason to stop it now, particularly as it's to her detriment. Line manager was wrong.

I wonder if some trans identifying people are deeply ashamed of being trans. Gay people have generally gone down the route that they have nothing to be ashamed of, hence the early Pride marches, with great success. I get the fear of people not understanding trans expression, but brazening that out seems a better strategy than trying to "live life as the opposite sex" with a constant fear the someone will notice, especially as it's very likely indeed that people have already noticed.

Interesting isn’t it. Because TW clearly feel that they are somehow perceived as ‘less womanly’ if they use a male toilet, or are ‘misgendered’ etc etc. whereas in reality they aren’t viewed as womanly in the first place. And a woman certainly wouldn’t feel less womanly using a unisex loo. Less safe, yes. Less womanly, no.

Yes. Because when you can define a group of males (boys under 8) that can use changing rooms/toilets for females, in such a way that is reasonably objectively capable of being enforced, and doesn’t affect the dignity or safety of women, people are usually OK with it.

DS – a men’s toilet doesn’t cease to be a men’s toilet if a pregnant woman uses it, or a woman cleans it or if a TM uses it.

And a man doesn't cease to be a man if he puts on a dress and makeup.

Very strange argument to pursue under the circumstances.