GLP v EHRC judgement - Thread 2

But..it’s true that women don't have penises. So is he saying that some women do have penises? The mind boggles, it really does at how unhinged people are over this issue.

Oh yes well spotted😂

And the hairline. The plugs are visible.

Someone should tell him to smile. He might find that validating.

And his brow

Unfiltered photos show the masculine jawline. I thought he'd had 'feminisation' surgery to his face? Apparently not.

I wouldn't describe Willy as gorgeous, even with those filters - many other words spring to mind, but gorgeous isn't one of them.

I want IW's filter; then I can truly look gorgeous too.
But I also need pouting lessons

😂😂 his face truly is a work of fiction

Ah, thanks - totally unrelated then.

No idea how I got myself blocked from the website. I can still see their tweets. Perhaps it's going through an MN link that slams the portcullis shut.

From the GLP website (not the full article)

We have taken the next step in our legal challenge by filing an application with the European Court of Human Rights. We are asking the court to rule on whether the decision of the English courts was lawful. This ruling prevents a six-year-old, legally known as D, from taking her mother’s surname and forces her to bear the name of the man who raped her mother.

What is the case about? (I'm appararently blocked from the GLP website.)

Not as confused as IW clearly is 😄

I am confused.
The GLP link is to a case that has nothing to do with Trans

What on earth is he doing to his eyelid?

I don't know, but he's doing as much heavy lifting as that filter is 😆

Oh he's such a idiot - every time he steps up to the keyboard he shows himself to be an utter fool.

What on earth is he doing to his eyelid?

OMG. I just went for a little look at X, I like to see what Wings is posting.

And there is IW reposting the GLP. God he's thick. He hasn't even bothered to read why the GLP are "going to Strasbourg". It has nothing to do with trans people.

Hurray! The Euro Court will almost certainly order that UK trans people’s FULL recognition as the sex we transition to be FULLY RESTORED - and that toilet apartheid is illegal. As per what the UK was told 20 years ago. As is the norm across civilised Europe. Last week, the EU voted to fully recognise trans women as women.

@bphillipsonMP can avoid this embarrassment by simply restating the aim of the GRA 2004 - and over-rule the crooked UKSC ruling. Get in line with human rights. Ditch the hate. Come on our side Bridget. It’s the #RightSideOfHistory . Labour did it with flights to Rwanda. They can do it with this. Well done
@GoodLawProject

https://x.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/2024884272398541238?s=20

People are agreeing with him!
Contagious loonyism
He's shocking

Have you seen this. So much to unpack. He really is a loon.

Short of having "women don't have penises" tattooed across her forehead Bridget Phillipson could hardly be clearer about who she is choosing to stand with.

And it's the men's rights movement in drag that is transhate
^ https://archive.ph/Ul7g3^

https://bsky.app/profile/goodlawproject.org/post/3mf4yp4z6cs2k

Little hypocrite is back on X too

Helen Fry is not just any legal bod. Helen Fry is a TRA.

The child as mere prop in male fantasy role-play. 🙄The parents should both be ashamed of themselves.

The argument now seems to come down to a distinction between "right" and "not necessarily wrong".

• This finding was contrary to the EHRC’s interim update, which said that allowing trans women to use a women’s toilet meant that (cis) men would also be allowed to use it – but the Court held that the EHRC’s analysis was not “necessarily” wrong in all cases, and so its approach did not give rise to legal error.

In any event, if trans identifying men are permitted by a service provider to use a women's toilet then it's no longer single sex. To the extent that failure to provide single-sex toilets for women may be indirect discrimination, the women+trans-women is no longer helpful for a service provider, regardless of whoever else is or isn't permitted to use it. So I'm not sure any distinction between "right" and "not wrong" is very useful.

https://bateswells.co.uk/updates/case-update-good-law-project-limited-ors-v-ehrc/

He's found a legal bod who agrees with his interpretation of last week's loss! The blog he links to doesn't have the author's name on it but I wonder if it was written by this ex employee of the GLP? He's so hilariously transparent, that letter by Michael Foran et al must have really annoyed him.