Consequences of ls v NHSE England court win, discuss & explore the detail of judgement, what this means for other cases and institutions

Hello all :)

I found this article quite interesting:

https://nuntiatoria.org/2026/05/15/the-law-reasserts-its-limits-ls-v-nhs-england-and-the-collapse-of-assumption-in-public-policy/

Our political views differ, OP, but I was referring to more than the narrow picture of HoC majorities. There's the media, the inertia of the Civil Service, the trades unions even, etc etc. We talk abut politicians 'running the country' and whether they're good or bad at it, but the truth is, they don't, civil servants do. And if pols want to make change, they have to fight real hard to do so.

Can you imagine a climate where it could be repealed, though? I can just imagine the headlines, the outrage. In a world where everyone is scared to call a spade a spade...

AFAIK the GRA goes further than Europe required. And it absolutely needs to be repealed though this isn’t going to be possible in the immediate future.

Sex matters have a proposal on how sex could reliably be included on an id card. Same could be used for occasions where sex verification is needed without an id card:

@@@@@@@@@@@@@
For people born in the UK, the most straightforward approach would be to cross-reference with the birth register (which is being digitised), since this has been kept accurate (including for people with gender-recognition certificates).
For those born in other countries, other reliable administrative data sources would need to be found. This could include certain statutory records. For example, if someone is registered as the mother on the birth record of a child born in the UK, this is proof that the person is female. If a person married before 2004 and is registered as a husband or wife, this is also accurate proof of sex. Other possibilities would be their GP vouching for their sex (in response to an unambiguous question about sex, not gender identity), or a cheek-swab test from a validated source (such as for an athlete).

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@“

Ideally, surely, there should be an international standard agreed on passports. Now we have a situation where some countries allow a 'I' or 'X' sex markers, and some don't. Which should never have been permitted, in my view. But that's where we are. What to do about edge cases, like people with a DSD who have been socialised since birth as one sex, whereas biologically they are another, is a more difficult question. But vanishingly rare edge cases shouldn't drive what happens to the other 99%.

Well if you put it like that…. However that’s the instruction that came from Europe. So until we get back to ECtHR i think we are stuck with it. And the SC renders it almost useless anyway

Gender ideology is inherently misogynistic - it’s there in law!

still haven’t tracked down a copy - my library won’t do an inter library loan… on my wish list

Maybe Thats the Achilles heel? If we all campaign for that exception to be removed then the old boys will decide to kill off this stuff? Cant have any daughters inheriting can we?! 🙄

I agree with the tactic of leaving it (and the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) in place because to do otherwise looks unmagnaminous.

But these laws actually give trans people nothing, apart from making it easier for them to conceal their sex, which needs to be got rid of too.

They are already adequately protected from discrimination under the headings of belief and disability.

And, since the equalisation of laws on marriage, tax, and pensions, the two sexes have identical rights in the UK, except in some narrow circumstances where sex matters. The SC has declared that the narrow rights that arise in those circumstances cannot be transferred to an opposite-sex person just by giving them a certificate.

Apart from the above, trans people already have all the rights of the opposite sex, just as we all do.

There is literally only one right that isn't shared by the sexes, and yet to which actual sex is completely irrelevant, and that's the right to inherit a peerage. If the GRC is supposed to confer cross-sex rights, how about fixing this needless exemption in the GRA, so that transmen can take titles away from their younger brothers or male cousins?

That’s a good point. I hadn’t thought of it like that.

I think it should go from every other perspective, but in terms of Realpolitik, that works.

No - having listened to Naomi Cunningham and Akua Reindorf, the GRC is what has put Terf island into a good position compared to other countries. It is "a wide gate, leading to a short paddock" according to Naomi - whereas other places have self ID which is a "wide gate to the whole bloody hill side"! So please don't campaign to get rid - it is useful in limiting the spread of gender stuff while also giving trans people reasonable rights in relation to the state (just not in relation to other people)

Loving the toilet discussions! I have been saying for a long time that it’s going to be really difficult and expensive to get this right which is why, when BP said she was talking to the HSE and EHRC I was happy she was taking her time - I think I must be unique in that way. Toilets are complicated!

Toilets have been ‘bodged’ for so long. Document T was an attempt to make the health and safety rules accessible to the public - I have my criticisms but it tries to make very detailed Building Control clearer and free. It covers all buildings (shops, venues, businesses) bar a couple of exceptions, including schools. This is for England. The rules are in place for health and safety.

All the countries have similar building regulations for non-domestic toilets. For instance, for years it has been stated by all that they should have toilet doors that open from the outside outwards in an emergency. In my research, this still isn’t in place and I know of young people who have died in the last couple of years where the fire brigade have had to be called to get to them, wasting time when they are in a critical state. In another case in a pub recently the staff used a sledgehammer to get to a young person who subsequently died.

There were lots of costs analysis that went into document T and they decided it was to be retrospective - that is anywhere (businesses, shops, venues) with a non-domestic toilet would comply if they were a new building or were doing a refurbishment.

HOWEVER, this is where it gets fun because this was before FWS. So, those businesses and venues that have been good and kept to regulations have nothing to worry about.

However, venues that have gone for all mixed sex designs which is not following building regs, are now going to have problems. And if they do a refurbishment, which they almost certainly will have to do, it will have to comply with building regs if they want to be compliant.

It really won’t be popular because it’s going to cost a lot of money. Who picks up the bill? Schools are the worst because they didn’t have to comply with 1992 legislation but the DfE allowed the designs.

Document T is based on British Standards 6465 (parts 1 to 4). I am seeing British Standards being quoted more and more such as in this year’s school design guidance now (hurrah).

It's clear that in future it may be even more necessary sometimes to prove your birth sex, and, thanks to the GRA, this has become impossible for almost everyone other than by providing a birth certificate that was issued before their eighteenth birthday.

The Registrar may have to come up with solutions for people who have lost or destroyed the original document.

I could only read the first message. I can't do any more!!!

Unironically if you're a terf you should just be forced to use the gender neutral toilets. That's already a "biological single-sex space" because they only contain one person. But terfs don't want to have a space they can use they just want trans people to not have a space.

Yes, I had a look through all the various embedded links when I was responding to the KCSIE guidance and got very lost.... but couldn't see anything that nailed it down. Thank you for helping me know I hadn't gone mad! Interesting (and concerning) that it used to be there but now isn't.

Ps @usernameinserthere irrespective of that loophole, thank you for all the info on the question I asked.

Thank you.

If you are a parent I would refuse to send my child on a residential where a man who identifies as a woman is sleeping in the dorms.

It's more a case of accessing, to supervise as and when. Staff will sleep separately, but (in theory at least) only female staff are meant to access girls' accommodation. In practice that won't be what's happening when a male member of staff is recorded as being female and/or identifies as a woman.

Edited to add: but like you say, the policy should make it clear that staff's sex is relevant here, even if they have a GRC.

Where it's going to get extra complicated is when they've gone down the "sensitive" DBS route and their sex is hidden. But that will be the same in any employment situation that requires a DBS check, not just schools.

Well indeed.

Although on a plus note, Fred the LSA (gulp) will presumably be covered under employment law as a service provider in a public body ... so I'm hoping that existing case law and the stuff that's yet to come from Peggie/Kelly does apply 🤞