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

I think they just want something, anything in law that accepts some men really are women.

They had it with the GRA but FWS re-established that it's a legal fiction ith absolute limits, so now they need to re-establish a beachhead.

It doesn't matter how small and slight it is, it's crossing the barrier.

Once the law accepts that full, non qualified womanhood can be something other than natally female, they can chip away at the criteria to widen it.

And with an arbitrary line, which any non sex based line is going to be, it will always be possible to show how unfair it is that two people who are in almost identical situations face have very different outcomes just because they fall on different sides of a barrier that was arbitrarily determined and could so easily be moved just that little bit over.

They did it once by bypassing legal blessing and moving the men/women social barrier in practice further and further into the realm of men through media and insitutional capture. FWS stopped that.

So I think they are now trying to replay the same tactic with the law that blocked them and try to get well meaning judges to move specific provisions from the non arbitrary sex line onto an arbitrary gender line that is far more vulnerable to challenge (for good reason - TRAs can entirely reasonably and convinceingly demonstrate any given gender line is artbitrary and unjustified becsuse fundamentally, it is. Their dishonesty is the claim that the new gender line is any less so.)

Case by case for toilets just means self ID. Who has the time and resources to assess every man before he goes into the ladies and on what basis could they possibly select the men who can enter. I’m not surprised that Labour are still not prepared to support the rights of women and girls. They’ve probably got a majority of TWAW MPs

This is very very worrying. Maya said in her vox-pop that the govt is a “neutral” party to the case. (With possibly a barely detectable eye-roll.)

This doesn’t sound very neutral.

The BBC have covered the case.

It's very concerning that Bridget Phillipson's KC was arguing for trans inclusion on a "case by case" basis. It sounds like Phillipson just wants to return to Stonewall law.

"Zoe Leventhal KC, representing the minister for women and equalities, argued that the guidance may have been too simplistic in suggesting that, for example, a trans woman should not use a women's toilet in a public space. She suggested that it could be judged on a case-by-case basis."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddrjq9764yo

Is this why the government are refusing to pass the new guidance? Are they awaiting the outcome of this?

Not sure what the rules are around barristers and conflicts of interests but presumably on the basis that she acts on instructions and her personal and political beliefs don’t come into it. It doesn’t look right though imo.

So.how is she representing the govt?

Zoe Lethanthal KC is a Green Party councillor, she stood as a GP candidate at the last general election.

The BBC have covered the case.

It's very concerning that Bridget Phillipson's KC was arguing for trans inclusion on a "case by case" basis. It sounds like Phillipson just wants to return to Stonewall law.

"Zoe Leventhal KC, representing the minister for women and equalities, argued that the guidance may have been too simplistic in suggesting that, for example, a trans woman should not use a women's toilet in a public space. She suggested that it could be judged on a case-by-case basis."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddrjq9764yo

The BBC have covered the case.

It's very concerning that Bridget Phillipson's KC was arguing for trans inclusion on a "case by case" basis. It sounds like Phillipson just wants to return to Stonewall law.

"Zoe Leventhal KC, representing the minister for women and equalities, argued that the guidance may have been too simplistic in suggesting that, for example, a trans woman should not use a women's toilet in a public space. She suggested that it could be judged on a case-by-case basis."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddrjq9764yo

This is very very worrying. Maya said in her vox-pop that the govt is a “neutral” party to the case. (With possibly a barely detectable eye-roll.)

This doesn’t sound very neutral.

Is this why the government are refusing to pass the new guidance? Are they awaiting the outcome of this?

The BBC have covered the case.

It's very concerning that Bridget Phillipson's KC was arguing for trans inclusion on a "case by case" basis. It sounds like Phillipson just wants to return to Stonewall law.

"Zoe Leventhal KC, representing the minister for women and equalities, argued that the guidance may have been too simplistic in suggesting that, for example, a trans woman should not use a women's toilet in a public space. She suggested that it could be judged on a case-by-case basis."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddrjq9764yo

The BBC have covered the case.

It's very concerning that Bridget Phillipson's KC was arguing for trans inclusion on a "case by case" basis. It sounds like Phillipson just wants to return to Stonewall law.

"Zoe Leventhal KC, representing the minister for women and equalities, argued that the guidance may have been too simplistic in suggesting that, for example, a trans woman should not use a women's toilet in a public space. She suggested that it could be judged on a case-by-case basis."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddrjq9764yo

Exactly. Any crack will mean the TRAs will be able to say that service providers may be legally liable for discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment, and that will have a chilling effect on providing women only spaces. I’m concerned that no one (the judge, EHRC, Philipson) seems to take the possibility of discrimination or harassment of women particularly seriously.

The BBC have covered the case.

It's very concerning that Bridget Phillipson's KC was arguing for trans inclusion on a "case by case" basis. It sounds like Phillipson just wants to return to Stonewall law.

"Zoe Leventhal KC, representing the minister for women and equalities, argued that the guidance may have been too simplistic in suggesting that, for example, a trans woman should not use a women's toilet in a public space. She suggested that it could be judged on a case-by-case basis."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddrjq9764yo

Surely anyone in the legal profession would understand that invisible criteria isn't any criteria at all.

You can't let men in based on criteria you can't see, don't know about, and couldn't verify anyway.

And are they really they saying that it's only going to be confined to toilets? What about changing rooms? Sport?

Plus, there will be a whole host of men absolutely outraged that access to women spaces is now dependent upon surgery.

Surely that's a violation of human rights in itself.

It's so arbitrary and unenforceable.