"Misandry is the root of all trans fear. Men’s fear of other men. Women’s fear of all men."

Lol, the High court no less is quoted. One more time for the slow ones!

The High Court emphasised that where service provision is equal and separate for both men and women, this is unlikely to be true:

[61] …In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “the female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex…

Yes, they didn’t have standing. But the “trans people” they were bringing the case with arguably did, and the case was heard, wasn’t it? The judge threw out your argument about “outing”. He also brought the workplace regs firmly within scope, which is another way GLP made the situation worse, not better, for TRAs and their allies like yourself.

Have you read it?

Nope. The case was rejected for no standing.

What argument is this intended to support transwomen in women’s toilets or all toilets being mixed sex?

He threw out all your arguments, he mused idly that there was a theoretical possibility that it wouldn’t always, in every case, constitute discrimination against men. He was clear that not providing a single sex space was potentially discriminatory against women. He didn’t consider your scenario in detail. Of course Maugham and his fans (I’m cringing for you) rushed to pretend it was a win.

The basic line is a space being in a state of undress. Overwhelmingly that's not the case for public toilets

I must be toileting wrong. I find that if I remain fully clothed when I use the loo my trousers tend to get wet

It's lovely stuff. Especially after you yourself have acknowledged the difference between sex and gender identity.

a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “the female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex…

How so, given that transwomen and men are the same sex? I'm starting to enjoy you trying to make it make sense. * *

If the case was rejected and not heard what judgment are you quoting from.

But the arguments were heard. He didn’t say, “sorry you’ve all wasted your time coming today, go home”

Talk about hilariously flailing to have your cake and eat it, when it’s been knocked off the table and stamped on.

Provision of a female lavatory & allowing trans identifying males to use it would amount to discrimination against women.

No no you didn’t. You would need to show that à TIM would be at a significant disadvantage if he used a male facilities that no other male would have. You don’t quite manage that.

Yes exactly.

I’m kind of in danger of that reading some of these posts tbh!

That’s the bit Mr Maugham chooses to omit in his spin memo to his gullible supporters. That was stated in the judgment, in a way it had not been before.

That sub doesn't understand that its trans rights that they demanded have caused their problem.

Not only is a GRC only based on a diagnosis, the certificate itself is reasonably private. Therefore, for the service provider and service user, there is no difference to Fred before and after transition. Also Fred is indistinguishable from 'middle age cis man' Fred, and PC of GR Fred.

SSE are justified on the bases of sex, and designed to accommodate only one sex. Nobody can change sex, but if it could be demonstrated that a 'meaningful ' transition has taken place, that both service providers and users could live with, there's a good chance the courts would accommodate them somehow.

But reddit trans want to be women because they said so and to be in women's spaces.

Some now think its easier to move towards 'nothing without us'. If they cant use women's SSE, then they shouldnt exist.

From the judgment GLP lost against EHRC

they gave some bad arguments about letting TIMs use women’s spaces in the workplace being like letting a male cleaner in or a male toddler etc

Swift wasn’t convinced:

“Further, none of the examples above would be materially the same as the one of the employer who decided that the lavatories provided to meet the obligation under regulation 20 should be trans-inclusive. Rather, that employer has adopted a policy or practice to allow some biological males to use the female lavatory. An employer would not comply with the obligation under regulation 20 (to make sufficient provision in separate rooms containing lavatories provided for men and women, respectively) if he permitted the room for women to be used by some men and vice versa. That would go against the purpose of the regulation.”

he’s saying that such a toilet would be mixed sex and non compliant

This is from the Supreme Court judgment FWS v Scottish Ministers itself, as quoted in Swift’s judgment - my bold

para 224

”Here too it is plain that sex has its biological meaning. The Inner House however, held at para 59 that “sex” in this context is defined as including birth sex for those still living in that sex, and “acquired sex” for those in possession of a GRC in the opposite gender. In our judgment, this would undermine the very considerations of privacy and decency between the sexes both in the availability of communal sleeping accommodation and in the use of sanitary facilities which the legislation plainly intended to provide for. If sex has a certificated sex meaning it is difficult to envisage any circumstances in which this gateway could sensibly be met since there would be no rational basis for saying that “for reasons of privacy” any communal accommodation and sanitary facilities should be used by women and trans women with a GRC (so legally female but biologically male) only, but not by trans women without a GRC who may be indistinguishable from those in possession of a GRC (and vice versa). This interpretation would run contrary to the plain intention of these provisions.”

From the GLP v EHRC judgment, dismissing the point about “outing”

”On this issue, the circumstances of a particular situation could, as a matter of theory, lead to the conclusion that a requirement to use the unisex or accessible lavatory rather than an available single sex one might amount to less favourable treatment, but I consider this is likely to be the more rare rather than more common conclusion. So far as concerns use of public lavatories it ought rarely, if ever, be the case that a person using a unisex lavatory rather than an available single-sex one will ever be a matter of comment by others. One point raised was that the unisex provision is often labelled “accessible” or “disabled”. That is a current common practice, but it is not a practice that is invariable or need continue. There is no reason why, if only as a matter of sensible accommodation, the labelling could not change. A propensity for gossip is a feature of every workplace. So far as concerns gossip at work, no employee can expect not to be the subject of gossip about something on some occasion. Gossip is usually temporary; it is in its nature to be short-lived, as one subject is quickly overtaken by another. Up to a point, being the subject of comment by others is burden that anyone can expect to bear from time to time, and ought not to be a foundation for legal redress.
74.

Overall, I do not consider that either point (ix) or point (x) contains any misstatement of law.”

“While I am less certain than the Interim Update that a man prevented from using the Claimants’ trans-inclusive female lavatory would be likely to establish the less favourable treatment necessary to make good a claim of direct sex discrimination, I do not consider that the way the point is put in the Update is necessarily wrong. Rather, it is a point that may turn on the facts of a situation.”

this is why he doesn’t rule that EHRC are wrong to say it.

He threw out the contention that the toilets couldn’t be “policed” and therefore single sex restrictions weren’t feasible (my bold)

^The final contention in support of this submission is that a reading of regulation 20 that require the lavatories in the room provided for men to be used by biological men, and those in the room provided for women to be used by biological women, would place too great a burden on employers, requiring them to either “police” the use of lavatories or risk prosecution for breach of the 1992 Workplace Regulations. This point is significantly overstated.
40.If the obligation under regulation 20 is as I have concluded, an employer who provides the lavatories required in the rooms required, and who in good faith adopted and applied a policy that the female lavatories were available only to biological women and the male ones only available to biological men, would do what is required by the Regulations. The employees concerned would know what was expected of them. Contrary to the Claimants’ submission, this is not to say that an employer’s compliance with regulation 20 will depend on the “minutia” of how the use of lavatories is managed. The notion that an employer or anyone else is required to “police” the use of a lavatory, person by person and day by day, reveals the application of a “logic” so strict that it is divorced from reality and from any sensible model of human behaviour.^

If anyone wants to read the judgment in full

https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/2026001063/2026ewhc279admin_TNA/html

Sex work isn't even illegal in this jurisdiction (some associated activities, like rape, coercive control, false imprisonment & sex trafficking are - and should be)

They have to make themselves out to be innocent victims, & at the same time, highly sexualised victims at that.

Exactly, this claim is doing double duty.

I have seen legal argument that any segregation by sex, without the exemptions granted in the EA(2010), has the potential to be inherently discriminatory, even if the facilities are separate but equal. The shameful history of racial segregation suggests that this might be so.