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

And there are many reasons why somebody might be desperate for the loo.

I’m quite pleased that they are doing. Having a judge shoot down their suitable only for Twitter and not a court of law arguments will be useful and also entertaining.

I’m quite pleased that they are doing. Having a judge shoot down their suitable only for Twitter and not a court of law arguments will be useful and also entertaining.

I never needed to use the men’s toilets when I was pregnant. Generally the only time I have seen this suggested by women is when there has been a huge queue at the ladies and none at all at the men’s - which is itself discrimination against women.

I never needed to use the men’s toilets when I was pregnant. Generally the only time I have seen this suggested by women is when there has been a huge queue at the ladies and none at all at the men’s - which is itself discrimination against women.

Exactly. There’s a big difference between exceptional or emergency use by the opposite sex and it being written into an employer’s policy that the opposite sex can habitually use them.

Exactly. There’s a big difference between exceptional or emergency use by the opposite sex and it being written into an employer’s policy that the opposite sex can habitually use them.

Why do barristers keep trying to reargue the SC ruling in lower courts? And bring up cases that have been superseded by the SC judgement? Surely that is pretty basic first year law degree stuff?

Once again it's not about the use of the room, it's about the use of the women in the room and disregarding their feelings and ability to consent.

This needs projecting onto the house of bloody commons.

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.

If women, pregnant or otherwise, or women who identify as men, routinely use it, then no it's not a men's toilet, is it. It's mixed sex.

For goodness sake. What kind of stupid argument is that?

As a pp pointed out, the desperation is to be able to use the toilet that says women only.

It's access to women that is key.

Once again it's not about the use of the room, it's about the use of the women in the room and disregarding their feelings and ability to consent.

This needs projecting onto the house of bloody commons.

Once again it's not about the use of the room, it's about the use of the women in the room and disregarding their feelings and ability to consent.

This needs projecting onto the house of bloody commons.

'You can pee in a policeman's helmet if you're pregnant', was the received wisdom I heard.

Don't tell the GLP, they'll claim police helmets are mixed sex and use that as their next argument.

It's quite interesting and not a little satisfying watching people tying themselves in knots trying to explain why this subset of men are to be given access to vulnerable women and girls, and what the (made up and constantly changing) criteria is.

We've seen long screeds on here from trans identified men trying to justify why our boundaries should be dismantled and our consent ignored. There's a grim sort of enjoyment watching it being played out in a court, with normal people looking on.

Not least because, transactivism has got to such a pitch, that a lot of people have more or less caught on.

Talk about missing the Zeitgeist.

Why do barristers keep trying to reargue the SC ruling in lower courts? And bring up cases that have been superseded by the SC judgement? Surely that is pretty basic first year law degree stuff?

I acknowledge that these days I am less likely to frequent the parts of this website that deal with pregnancy, but I can't ever remember people suggesting that pregnant women should use or had a right to use men's loos - have I missed something?

It was never mentioned at NCT classes.

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.

If women, pregnant or otherwise, or women who identify as men, routinely use it, then no it's not a men's toilet, is it. It's mixed sex.

For goodness sake. What kind of stupid argument is that?

As a pp pointed out, the desperation is to be able to use the toilet that says women only.

It's access to women that is key.

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.

If women, pregnant or otherwise, or women who identify as men, routinely use it, then no it's not a men's toilet, is it. It's mixed sex.

For goodness sake. What kind of stupid argument is that?

As a pp pointed out, the desperation is to be able to use the toilet that says women only.

It's access to women that is key.

This is fascinating (transcription errors corrected by me)

J – what do you mean managed, the regs say there should be separate rooms,

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.

J – so these occasional cases mean that a TW can use a women’s toilet at any time. Let’s take a step back – employers have to only provide the room and then do nothing, it’s a free for all.

DS – if one has a free for all and the entire convention breaks down, I’m not suggestng that, I’m suggesting that you can have trans inclusive toilets.

J – you are saying that the employer has to provide m/f toilets but can allow TW and TM to use the toilets of LG. What are you saying? Is it a definitional problem. An employer must provide the facility, but an employer could operate a policy of trans inclusion.

DS – yes, that is precisely the policy the EHRC recommended in 2011,
J – yes but life has moved on

Life has indeed moved on.

I’m confused by the intersex persons story. It seems they’re biologically and legally female and present as female but identify as intersex and have been asked to use gender neutral toilets by their employer. This seems irrelevant to the EHRC guidance no? Seems like their employer has got it wrong here and she may have a case against them? Or have I got that wrong?