Not directly responding to your post, but along the same lines -
I was interested to read in the ruling that 'hard cases make bad laws'/it can be permissible for a law to have negative consequences for individuals.
Like New York New York, it's so good she named it twice, at 114 and 135😄
135 ..The imposition of a bright line rule may have adverse consequences for individuals but there is a strong line of authority which makes clear that, as explained by the European Court of Human Rights in Animal Defenders at paragraph 106: “a state can, consistently with the Convention, adopt general measures which apply to pre-defined situations regardless of the individual facts of each case even if this might result in individual hard cases”.
114... Relying on Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 21 at [106], the petitioner maintained that a general measure can be adopted which applies to pre-defined situations regardless of the individual facts of each case even if this might result in individual hard cases.
The 'pre-defined situation' in this case is that it is long-established practice that prisons are segregated by sex, and that fact that a few trans-IDing men don't like it does not mean it breaches their human rights.
and
82... For separate spaces to be maintained in a way that is foreseeable and consistent, there require to be rules, whether statutory, as in this case, or otherwise, which are capable of general application.
The judgment is well worth a read, Lady Ross is very clear and concise eg
92.. There are disadvantages associated with the sharing of accommodation by female and male prisoners; were it otherwise, there would be no need for sex segregation. [mic drop😁but not really because she goes on to say:]
At a minimum, those disadvantages are a risk to physical safety and violation of dignity.
108.... However, the respondents seek to apply an over-expansive construction of “equal opportunity requirements”. Promulgating and applying a policy which is inconsistent with the “equal opportunity requirements”, as defined in section L2 of Schedule 5, and by reference to the EA 2010, read, in this case, with the 2011 Rules, would result not in the observance of those requirements but in a breach.
And I noticed a reference to segregated swimming areas - any one in particular I wonder?🤔
75 The examples listed in paragraph [211] - changing rooms, homeless hostels, segregated swimming area - are all within the services category. These are all services provided to both men and women, but separately, and for reasons including the protection of women’s safety and the autonomy or privacy and dignity of the two sexes
And finally -how's this for a put-down?
[107] The difficulty with the respondents’ argument becomes clearer when its logical consequence is considered.
ouch!😁
[all bold/underlining mine]