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

Exactly. The stress and distress caused to women by men demanding that they undress in front of them, or saying that they cannot use mixed sex toilets resulted in abuse and derision.

I'm not sure why it's supposed to matter when man are upset and stressed, particularly when those men will have carefully allocated alternatives? Women had nothing. And these men would like to go back please to women having nothing, shutting up, getting their clothes off and being distressed. That's their idea of the right solution to all this.

So what will they argue? They will argue that a transvestite has article 8 rights which is the right to a private and family life.

So does everyone else Jolyon, Article 8 rights are not just for transvestites.

“Many people have told us they’ve been instructed to use different changing rooms and toilets at work, sometimes resulting in stress that has left them unfit to continue working.”

Just checking what thread I'm reading - is it about nurses in Fife and Darlington by any chance? No? Oh....😏

'Safe and kind' means calling women who object to men in women's spaces 'germs' and calling for people to 'punch them in the fucking face', if not actually punching them in the fucking face.

'Safe and kind' means feeding children medication that may make them infertile, putting them on drugs that may harm them, removing healthy body parts, because they don't feel an affinity with the arbitrary stereotypes associated with their sex.

'Safe and kind' means putting rapists in women's prisons, and to hell with any women who may object to sharing a shower with Isla Bryson, Karen White, or Tiffany Scott.

Away you go with your 'safe and kind'.

I'd say 'safe and kind' didn't include encouraging children to hang out with convicted torturer/kidnapper/attempted murderers who strip off at every opportunity and publically incite violence against women and girls. But I suppose I'm old fashioned.

'the EHRC’s legal obligation to promote a world which is safe and kind for trans people. After all, it’s all that trans people – and those who love them – want. '

A world which is 'safe and kind' for trans people. What does that actually mean, though? And why isn't every one else also entitled to a 'safe and kind' world?

I'm wondering if Jolyon let his daughter write that press release. Teenagers are cheap, but they're not very good at doing legal gravitas.

Then again, neither is Jolyon these days.

... or rabbits.

How about the legal obligation to promote a world which is safe and kind for foxes. After all, it’s just what foxes and the people who love them want.

I know we always say it, but sometimes it's just difficult to believe, that the only argument is do it otherwise I'll say you're mean.

It’s not actually the EHRC’s “legal obligation” to “promote a world which is safe and kind for trans people” when that is at the expense of other protected groups, Jolyon.

And they feel like they can no longer access public spaces, because of dodgy policies around toilet usage at everything from their local bar, to major music festivals.

Whereas disabled people know they can not access many more public spaces than bars or festivals, because there’s no toilets for them.

Why isn’t he campaigning for toilets for disabled people?

“Many people have told us they’ve been instructed to use different changing rooms and toilets at work, sometimes resulting in stress that has left them unfit to continue working.”
If he is not lying to further his own ends, that is encouraging news if many organisations have reacted to the SC and are enforcing sensible rules. It does cast a light on what it might be like to employ such fragile people and the costs of sick leave due to not getting their own way.

Hmmm
This could all prove to be a massive own goal for the trans community. If employers are faced with a choice of equally acceptable candidates and one is obviously trans, in the past they might have picked that person to contribute to their diverse workforce. I’m not so sure they’ll touch them with a barge poll now!
If this is all going to be associated with sick leave and legal cases, what employer wants to be involved with that?

Good lord. This doesn't even sound like it was written by an adult, let alone a lawyer

National associations have excluded them from sports – against the wishes of local people in those teams

Unfortunately words like so what and diddums immediately spring to mind.

And they feel like they can no longer access public spaces, because of dodgy policies around toilet usage at everything from their local bar, to major music festivals.

'Dodgy policies' - good heavens, my dog could manage better legalese.

We challenge that in legal terms,” Maugham said, “by pointing to the EHRC’s legal obligation to promote a world which is safe and kind for trans people. After all, it’s all that trans people – and those who love them – want.

I may not be impressed by a lawyer who was say, the most cruel and ruthless person on the planet, but seriously? 'After all, it's just what they want'???

As Steve Martin famously said, some people really have a way with words...

... and other people, oh er, not have way

As an aside, in a hugely positive development, Michael Foran appears to have reformed his previous approach of using the prescribed language ‘transwomen’ etc and is now using the far clearer ‘transvestite’ to describe the men clamouring to use women’s spaces and rejecting all reasonable accommodations.

I think we should all be doing this. The words 'transgender' or just 'trans' were pushed by the trans lobby in order to make it more palatable to the general public than the obviously sexualised terms transvestite and transsexual and also to blur the boundaries between the two groups.

This post (and the whole thread) are informative.

Let's go back to 2007 | Mumsnet

I tend to use the term transsexual when talking about children who are trans-identifying. If anyone talking about 'trans children' complains about this and says that the children are 'transgender' not 'transsexual', they are welcome to explain what the difference is.

Most men who claim to be trans are, as Michael Foran says, simply transvestites.

Interesting article, thank you for sharing it. This stands out:

I really can’t see any High Court judge granting TransLucent’s wish for a “a full, proper and independent review of the consultation responses before any new or amended [EHRC] guidance is published”.

Again this belief that it's some kind of Strictly Come Dancing vote that can brigade things into the way the lobby want. Surely if even 100% of the consultation responses are that the law should not be followed, it won't affect the outcome. The consultation is about implementing the law.

Labour Pains goes into some detail on the various crowdfunders: Supreme Court ruling, supreme court grifting | Labour Pains

It is also a tactic seen very, very often by this lobby: hurl vast amounts of random muck in the hope that a bit might stick.

Arguing in the alternative is standard legal practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative

Their issue is, that it is not only trans identified men who have human rights and a right to privacy.

They cannot and will never see that. But a court looking at human rights will have to. As Reindoft keeps telling them 'other people have rights'. And frankly this is what the human rights act is for - to prevent the most powerful, well funded and entirely selfish groups taking everything for themselves regardless of others. To stand up for those who are dismissed as worthless and not entitled to equality.

Like women.

Add to that the cost of the negligence claims when the harms become evident.

I think they are trying to argue that HR laws mean that changing gender/sex is a legal right, and those people have a right to privacy.

Therefore uk law must reflect this. So either UK law has been misinterpreted or UK law wrong.

Single sex toilet design has already been compromised recently.

What is he arguing for?
That all toilets are designed as unisex or that all single sex places are unisex (therefore the existing toilets will have to change their design to be unisex)?

Either way, we will lose the safer, single sex designs.

I believe JM had an annual income of around £400k at the height of his success in tax law (not sure if that was just from legal work or if he has other sources of income). Then, if I recall correctly, he lowered his income to £90-£95k ish when he switched to gender law

I am not a lawyer but this bit reads oddly: “But we argue it’s either wrong in law, or it breaches the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998”

Are they saying they are not sure which of these they think it is? Or they hope by suggesting it might be one or the other of two different that they have a better chance of something sticking? It doesn’t sound very well reasoned