Good Law Project v the EHRC in court today

From what I understand, the GLP's case is multi-pronged.

They want the judge to rule that the EHRC's interim update is unlawful.

However if the judge says the update is lawful, then the GLP want the judge to say the EHRC's update is incompatible with trans people's convention rights under Article 8 and Article 14 of the Human Rights Act.

Interestingly - this is similar to the argument that Jane Russell put forward in the Harriet Haynes English Blackball Pool Federation case.

Barrister Barbara Rich snipped the key parts of the judgment showing why the judge in that case rejected permission to appeal based on the Article 8 and Article 14 arguments.

https://x.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1951258555979301005?t=EkA9Dwrex--qHJzgfh--cg&s=19

Ps. IANAL so may not be understanding this correctly 😀.

So, GLP have handed in their homework submission and the teacher judge has taken one look and said "This looks like you did it on the bus this morning, take it away and do it properly".

Is that right?

This ⬆️

A good signal that the J knows he is dealing with an idiot from the Good Laugh Project. Off to a good start 😂 first impressions and all that.

Jolyon is on the side of Trans the same way Nicola Sturgeon was on the side of Scottish independence.

Interesting reframing. So Jolyon is on our side while pretending not to be and making loads of money from the people he claims to support...

They want it ALL. All on their own terms and to suit them and to hell with anyone else. Anything else is not enough.

They are toddlers.

Thanks @Ereshkigalangcleg

I suppose I’m on a hiding to nothing wondering about the reasoning of the GLP 🤷🏼‍♀️

IAdefinitelyNAL but I can’t imagine them getting what they want.

I guess they are hoping for a judgment which will be binding on the CoP, not sure how likely that is.

Very well said, MissScarlet, I'm going to borrow that thank you!

I hate love people like you who can sum up in a few well-chosen words and perfectly-formed, succinct sentences what it takes me paragraphs to say.

Leaving aside everything else, if the GLP are questioning the interim guidance in November and the Code of Practice is expected in December, won’t the court just tell them to sling their hook?

Someone on twitter has called it The Good Laugh Project.

Which is why their main argument is about being “outed” which is hilarious in and of itself.

🎯

Reminder.

These are SUPPOSED to be professional, qualified and reputable lawyers taking on a legal case against the EHRC.

We've been saying they are a bunch of grifters, spouting utter incoherent bollocks which is legally illiterate.

And now a judge has said "Get your act together and come up with a coherent case and I'll consider it, otherwise you can piss off".

When IS the penny going to drop amongst activists who quote these Muppets as if they are the gospel?!

And single sex spaces cannot be redefined as single gender spaces without having to reassess why they are needed and if they are fit for purpose.

Single sex spaces can look at body differences and risks based on sex. I dont know how anyone would begin to decide which genders need separate facilities from which other genders.

It cannot simultaneously be a breach of trans women's human rights to have to use the same toilets as male people, and not a breach of women's human rights to have to use the same toilets as male people.

The human rights aspects rely on women not having any.

If the argument is that its against Human Rights laws that a trans person should not be outed unless they decide to be, we would have to to tighten up the GRA to have 'passing' as a requirement. Also that a GRC could only be relevant when nobody knew it was issued. If eddie izzard has a GRC and suddenly started to look like a women, we'd still know he's male, therefore he couldnt be outed by going into the male toilet.

If the argument is that trans people should use the opposite sex spaces for their own comfort, then that right would have to be balance with everyone elses right. Including women and any other man who would be more comfortable in the womens spaces.

A GRC or PR of GR could make the law treat someone as the opposite sex, but cannot make the public see someone as their desired sex. And 'outing' and comfort is dependent of the publics perception, not a theory in law.

I am not a lawyer but I see your Article 8 and raise my Article 2.

If you do proper risk assessments and equality and impact assessments, single sex designs with door gaps will always be safer and more hygienic. I know they can be life-saving.

The one exception for the opposite sex to enter (which has rightly been pointed out by EHRC) should be for younger children. They should go into single sex toilets of the sex of the carer they are with. This is because of the real risk where young children have been led into a toilet to be assaulted. This is more likely to happen in a mixed sex, private cubicle/room.

They see the existence of the vanishingly rare “stealth” passing male as a logic problem no one else can counter.

The arguments based on completely stealth people are very silly really. I've always assumed not much will change for the tiny minority of trans identified people who pass well enough not to be clocked at a glance.

It's true that doesn't accommodate the 99% who, I'm sorry to say this, stick out a mile. Sad times.

The whole "outing" argument Jolyon is so fond of relies on a hall of mirrors assumption that most TiMs are undetectable, so the only way to preserve their privacy is to allow them to self-select into the ladies.

This kind of thing makes me wonder if Jolyon has ever met any trans people, or if he seriously expects the courts to buy the view you often see on the Trans UK subreddit, that cis folx are too stupid to spot when someone is trans.

I would like toilets to be clean, sanitary and with adequate toilet paper and hand soap at all times.

But we can't always get even the basics 🤷🏼‍♀️

To be fair, TRA do talk about the impractical of wide spread gender neutral spaces. Its the solution thats different.

The problem for TRA is that none of their arguments stack up, and rely heavily on a completely sleath person. To offer a solution for those, 99% of trans identifying people would be excluded from any legalisation.

0.5% of the population who would like it but don't actually need it, I just can't see any rationale or justification for it

0.5% of the population probably strip completely naked for a poo, and we don't have extra provisions for them. 0.5% of people would prefer a heated or padded toilet seat, or piped musak, or a Japanese bum shower thing, or whatever. That's on them though - pretending someone is the other sex is on everyone else.