Page 5 | European Court of Human Rights

HollieHock · 2025-04-21T08:27:31+00:00

Just head a TRA on LBC saying they are going to take the case there. Please tell me this is not going to start again.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 21/04/2025 19:16

Chersfrozenface · 21/04/2025 19:14

At the the Old Vic, the Soho Theatre, the Royal Court, the Lyric Hammersmith, the Kiln Theatre (all in London), yes.

Show quote history

I would argue that that is indirect discrimination against women.

Most women aren't going to feel comfortable using toilets which contain urinals, which means they've just opened up women's toilets to men without providing any extra capacity for women.

GoldenGail · 21/04/2025 19:22

Imnobody4 · 21/04/2025 10:27

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

Its not “wrong” its common sense. The rights of trans people (less than 1%) should never be given priority over the rights of women and girls to feel safe. The very vast majority of people support the decision

JoanOgden · 21/04/2025 19:27

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 21/04/2025 19:16

I would argue that that is indirect discrimination against women.

Most women aren't going to feel comfortable using toilets which contain urinals, which means they've just opened up women's toilets to men without providing any extra capacity for women.

Show quote history

Yes, it's infuriating. And I'd be very glad to see a woman win a case against a theatre with gender-neutral toilets (some of which have urinals) on this issue, but I'm not aware of any litigation on it.

In fact, I think toilets like these discriminate more significantly against women than single-gender toilets, where the "women's" all have cubicles. Which is why I'd like to see a clear legal judgment that it is now unlawful for a theatre to offer single-gender toilets before I'm convinced of it.

GoldenGail · 21/04/2025 19:28

Tomatotater · 21/04/2025 14:55

Agreed. Institutions will have to provide a unisex facility, and as a result, I can almost guarantee that the volume of transwomen will go back down to the previously calculated vanishingly few 1 in 100,000. Because the vast majority of the apparently now 1 in 100 men who want access to womens toilets want it not to pee, but to show they have dominion and power over women. If it was just about using toilets and changing rooms they would have no problem respecting women's boundaries and just peeing and getting changed in a unisex cubicle. Especially if they ' feel like women' they would be able to ' feel' what it's like to be in danger from men.

Show quote history

Beautifully said x

samarrange · 21/04/2025 19:31

EasternStandard · 21/04/2025 17:52

Not sure about the legal detail @samarrangehas expanded on but doesn’t it come down to the ECHR guidance?

And which places are required by law to provide single sex facilities? Is there a list of who has to

The ECHR doesn't really have anything to say about this. And it certainly has no role to play in the SC case. The ECHR is not some kind of super-supreme court for all cases, despite how it's sometimes portrayed in the media.

Oh, and slightly off-topic, but: Someone upthread was wanting to refer to the ECHR (European Convention and/or Court of Human Rights) but actually typed EHRC, which is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a UK-only body that also figured in this case. It's a terminological minefield out there!

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/04/2025 19:33

It’s a common mistake, I’ve even seen media articles do it.

Polka83 · 21/04/2025 20:08

Imnobody4 · 21/04/2025 18:28

A model of clarity. Akua Reindorf explains the SC ruling.

www.thetimes.com/article/f89ecc90-d81e-4f92-967b-8b6309cbb65f?shareToken=063a08c00b1a7f7f0669edbc5bc281a1

Thank you for posting this article.

But how does this fit in with your earlier post that the SC’s definition of a woman is wrong in law?

”The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.”

Are you saying the SC got it wrong because it means that TW are now excluded from single sex spaces for women and it is going to be difficult for them? That’s like saying what the SC judgement is hurtful to TW, so it must be wrong. Doesn’t sound like a good legal argument.

Imnobody4 · 21/04/2025 20:16

Polka83 · 21/04/2025 20:08

Thank you for posting this article.

But how does this fit in with your earlier post that the SC’s definition of a woman is wrong in law?

”The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.”

Are you saying the SC got it wrong because it means that TW are now excluded from single sex spaces for women and it is going to be difficult for them? That’s like saying what the SC judgement is hurtful to TW, so it must be wrong. Doesn’t sound like a good legal argument.

Show quote history

Sorry to confuse. These are the words of Jolyon Maugham, barrister who runs the Good Law Project and is a well known TRA.
I disagree with him completely.

EasternStandard · 21/04/2025 21:08

samarrange · 21/04/2025 19:31

The ECHR doesn't really have anything to say about this. And it certainly has no role to play in the SC case. The ECHR is not some kind of super-supreme court for all cases, despite how it's sometimes portrayed in the media.

Oh, and slightly off-topic, but: Someone upthread was wanting to refer to the ECHR (European Convention and/or Court of Human Rights) but actually typed EHRC, which is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a UK-only body that also figured in this case. It's a terminological minefield out there!

Edited

Show quote history

Yes I mean my question from U.K. perspective. Doesn’t what happens next depend on the equalities one here?

Ie wrong acronym in my post

samarrange · 21/04/2025 21:37

EasternStandard · 21/04/2025 21:08

Yes I mean my question from U.K. perspective. Doesn’t what happens next depend on the equalities one here?

Ie wrong acronym in my post

Edited

Show quote history

That may well be the case. I know more about the ECHR. 🤷‍♂️

EasternStandard · 21/04/2025 21:42

samarrange · 21/04/2025 21:37

That may well be the case. I know more about the ECHR. 🤷‍♂️

Show quote history

I agree with your post from that perspective.

It’s too far in to a bank holiday weekend to deal with such close acronyms.

I think Baroness Falkner equalities one put out a statement on single sex being just for women and an indication third spaces would be needed. New guidance to be given this summer.

OuterSpaceCadet · 21/04/2025 21:43

FKAT · 21/04/2025 09:35

That would be the surest way of guaranteeing a Reform landslide in 2029.

Edited

This