Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Law firms in a muddle. (Roll on Friday)

154 replies

Imnobody4 · 25/04/2025 10:36

https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-law-firms-get-sex-muddle-over-supreme-court-verdict
Lewis Silkin was accused of being "grossly misleading" when it produced an analysis of the verdict which advised that men who identified as women were still entitled to use the single sex facilities of their choice in the workplace, and that employers who stopped transwomen from doing so could be sued for discrimination.“If employers do provide single sex spaces then (based on previous cases) it is likely to be gender reassignment discrimination to bar trans people from using the facilities of their choice. As this does not relate to GRCs [Gender Recognition Certificates], it is unaltered by the Court’s judgment", stated the analysis........After ROF asked the Law Society if the template policy, promoted by the SRA, potentially placed firms which adopted it in legal jeopardy following the ruling, it added a note at the top of the document warning, “We are currently reviewing this guidance in light of the recent Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers. Firms should continue to seek their own advice on these issues as applicable to their own circumstances”. The document, drafted by the Law Society's LGBT+ Committee and transwoman barrister Robin Moira White, also states that a “refusal to accept a trans person's gender identity” constitutes transphobia, which would now appear to catch the justices of the Supreme Court.Former tax barrister Jolyon Maugham, who runs the Good Law Project, might approve. Having predicted that "FWS will lose. The law really is pretty clear", following the verdict he posted on Bluesky that "There is a very real basis to believe - and I am a KC with an unblemished record - to believe that something very bad, delegitimising, happened in the Supreme Court", and claimed that the judges were "hubristic, reckless or bigoted".

EXCLUSIVE Law firms get in a sex muddle over Supreme Court verdict

XX or XY? X%@* this!

https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-law-firms-get-sex-muddle-over-supreme-court-verdict

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Stepfordian · 25/04/2025 20:43

A very quick google (and a dose of common sense) tells me that the state can interfere with your right to a private life under the human rights act when it is relevant and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms of other people, amongst other things.

JanesLittleGirl · 25/04/2025 22:46

What I take from this is that professional legal advice ain't worth shit. Any organisation starts from a position of "this is what we want to do. Is this legal?" The answer appears to be"Yes, arguably. But we may have to stretch, bend or misinterprate a lot of otherwise clear law to make it arguable."

PsychoHotSauce · 25/04/2025 22:53

JanesLittleGirl · 25/04/2025 22:46

What I take from this is that professional legal advice ain't worth shit. Any organisation starts from a position of "this is what we want to do. Is this legal?" The answer appears to be"Yes, arguably. But we may have to stretch, bend or misinterprate a lot of otherwise clear law to make it arguable."

Sounds about right. Ime they only have to argue enough to convince the client, rather than a judge. Then they get paid, but if (when) they lose its all "oopsie, bad luck!"

But I'm a cynic, don't listen to me Grin

Mmmnotsure · 25/04/2025 23:30

From TwiX re Jolyon:

John Wyllie

@qsilverfox

Perhaps his KC just means he’s Kennel Club registered?

https://x.com/qsilverfox

Cismyfatarse · 26/04/2025 00:00

It is like a bad game of Cluedo. Who dunnit?

JM in the garden, with a baseball bat?

RMW in the toilets with a flash card?

EweSurname · 26/04/2025 00:44

Apols if it’s been posted before:

www.spiked-online.com/2025/04/25/the-glorious-failures-of-jolyon-maugham/

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 26/04/2025 04:56

Signalbox · 25/04/2025 18:14

Good Law Project are raising funds to go to the High Court to challenge the Supreme Court ruling on the basis that it's incompatible with the ECHR.

They've already raised £45,000.

Does anyone know if this is a feasible way to challenge the SC ruling? I thought the HC was a lower court than the SC court so I'm confused as to how this would work. Any lawyers know what they are plotting. Or is it just another Jolyon grift?

The statement on the crowdfunding page is deranged. It's like they got a teenager to write it...

"We believe that the Supreme Court – which disgracefully refused to hear from trans people before handing down a decision with the profoundest possible consequences for trans lives – has placed or revealed the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act.

In a 2002 case called “Goodwin”, the European Court of Human Rights said: “A conflict between social reality and the law arises which places [a trans person] in an anomalous position, in which he or she may experience feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety” and found the UK in breach.

Following that case, the UK introduced the Gender Recognition Act to make us compliant. The Minister introducing the Act said it was intended to alter the definition of man and woman in equalities legislation but the Supreme Court, because it refused to hear from any trans people, appears to have been oblivious to this critical fact and decided references to men and women were to “biological” sex.

After the Supreme Court case, our so-called Equalities Minister, Bridget Phillipson, said “the ruling was clear that provisions and services should be accessed on the basis of biological sex”, and the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, said he no longer believes that trans women are women: “A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear.”

The decision and these statements shamefully deny the reality of trans existence and will lead to daily humiliation for trans people and for cis people who choose not to dress “normally”. And they will not make anyone safer, cis or trans.

To use single sex services, trans people and “non-conforming” cis men and women will be required to “prove” their “biological sex”: goodness knows how. Trans women, and cis women who don’t abide by gender norms, will be “frisked” by men. Trans men will be forced to identify themselves to everyone as trans by using female services. Younger trans people will be humiliated at school and at university.

The Nazis forced the LGBT+ community to identity themselves as “degenerates” by wearing pink triangles. Labour’s policy means that for trans people to move through the public sphere they will need, similarly, to identify themselves as trans in an increasingly violent and transphobic world.

We believe the UK is now in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention of Human Rights and we plan to ask the High Court for a declaration of incompatibility. We believe the legal arguments are strong – but we must also point out that the Supreme Court has revealed a readiness on the part of our courts to disapply, in the case of trans people, normal legal and procedural safeguards.

We have put together a legal team involving several KCs and at least one trans barrister. The legal team will be supported by heavyweight policy specialists in equalities law and will be informed by the lived experiences of trans people. We will publish the legal documents in the case as they become available and as the law permits. This is no small undertaking – but, for the trans community in Britain, it is literally existential.

We would be grateful for your help."

Trans women, and cis women who don’t abide by gender norms, will be “frisked” by men.

This flat fucking lie again.

IDontHateRainbows · 26/04/2025 05:00

Keeptoiletssafe · 25/04/2025 11:25

I have sent a message to them re single sex public toilets being the safest, and that I believe it’s disability discrimination to not have suitable toilets for those with invisible disabilities such as diabetes, epilepsy and heart conditions at work. Since the only toilet cubicles with door gaps are single sex designs it follows that it’s a very reasonable adjustment to have single sex loos.

Then mentioned the DfE school designs don’t have safety gaps anymore, despite every school having multiple children with those conditions.

I have written to them before, but it’s a niche subject. Let’s hope as it’s a topic on everyone’s minds it gets published.

Huh? Whoever said people with invisible disabilities can't use the disabled loos?

DworkinWasRight · 26/04/2025 05:44

IDontHateRainbows · 26/04/2025 05:00

Huh? Whoever said people with invisible disabilities can't use the disabled loos?

Those loos don’t have a gap in the bottom of the door, so they are unsuitable for anyone who might have a seizure or pass out.

EasternStandard · 26/04/2025 07:07

Signalbox · 25/04/2025 18:14

Good Law Project are raising funds to go to the High Court to challenge the Supreme Court ruling on the basis that it's incompatible with the ECHR.

They've already raised £45,000.

Does anyone know if this is a feasible way to challenge the SC ruling? I thought the HC was a lower court than the SC court so I'm confused as to how this would work. Any lawyers know what they are plotting. Or is it just another Jolyon grift?

The statement on the crowdfunding page is deranged. It's like they got a teenager to write it...

"We believe that the Supreme Court – which disgracefully refused to hear from trans people before handing down a decision with the profoundest possible consequences for trans lives – has placed or revealed the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act.

In a 2002 case called “Goodwin”, the European Court of Human Rights said: “A conflict between social reality and the law arises which places [a trans person] in an anomalous position, in which he or she may experience feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety” and found the UK in breach.

Following that case, the UK introduced the Gender Recognition Act to make us compliant. The Minister introducing the Act said it was intended to alter the definition of man and woman in equalities legislation but the Supreme Court, because it refused to hear from any trans people, appears to have been oblivious to this critical fact and decided references to men and women were to “biological” sex.

After the Supreme Court case, our so-called Equalities Minister, Bridget Phillipson, said “the ruling was clear that provisions and services should be accessed on the basis of biological sex”, and the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, said he no longer believes that trans women are women: “A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear.”

The decision and these statements shamefully deny the reality of trans existence and will lead to daily humiliation for trans people and for cis people who choose not to dress “normally”. And they will not make anyone safer, cis or trans.

To use single sex services, trans people and “non-conforming” cis men and women will be required to “prove” their “biological sex”: goodness knows how. Trans women, and cis women who don’t abide by gender norms, will be “frisked” by men. Trans men will be forced to identify themselves to everyone as trans by using female services. Younger trans people will be humiliated at school and at university.

The Nazis forced the LGBT+ community to identity themselves as “degenerates” by wearing pink triangles. Labour’s policy means that for trans people to move through the public sphere they will need, similarly, to identify themselves as trans in an increasingly violent and transphobic world.

We believe the UK is now in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention of Human Rights and we plan to ask the High Court for a declaration of incompatibility. We believe the legal arguments are strong – but we must also point out that the Supreme Court has revealed a readiness on the part of our courts to disapply, in the case of trans people, normal legal and procedural safeguards.

We have put together a legal team involving several KCs and at least one trans barrister. The legal team will be supported by heavyweight policy specialists in equalities law and will be informed by the lived experiences of trans people. We will publish the legal documents in the case as they become available and as the law permits. This is no small undertaking – but, for the trans community in Britain, it is literally existential.

We would be grateful for your help."

This is bizarre. Is it to just get money? There should be more controls on what you can say to get funding like this for supposed legal cases.

Keeptoiletssafe · 26/04/2025 09:39

IDontHateRainbows · 26/04/2025 05:00

Huh? Whoever said people with invisible disabilities can't use the disabled loos?

They can. But they often don’t need to and it’s safer if they don’t.

Have you ever seen someone have a stroke, seizure, hypo, asthma attack, heart attack? People are disorientated beforehand and it can come on quickly.

All designs of mixed sex toilets are private. In the critical moments of needing help, you really don’t want to be in a private space where no one can see you.

If you feel ill in public, where do you go? The strain actually can set off medical episodes. That’s why there’s lots of bodies found in toilets. That’s why toilet design has inwards opening doors that can be changed for the door to pull outwards - because of the experiences of a collapsed body getting in the way

The young woman I saved was in a single sex toilets with a door gap. I saw her blue hand from outside the cubicle. She had choked on vomit, in a nightclub. We got her breathing again.

The child that came to harm, even though I was a few feet away from them and could have saved them, I could have helped but we had a full height door between us. I didn’t know.

It helps anyone to be in single sex toilets because they have door gaps in their design.

Here’s the science bit:
There are known medical reasons for a disproportionally high frequency of cardiac arrests and strokes while an individual is in the toilet room. Whilst there’s no accessible data where people collapse. However, it is known there are around 100,000 hospital admissions due to heart attacks in this country, equating to one every five minutes. It is estimated there are 400,000 people in the U.K. with undiagnosed heart failure. There are also around 100,000 strokes in this country, equating to one every five minutes. Around 1% of people in this country have epilepsy and around 80 people are diagnosed with epilepsy each day. There are many other conditions that lead to collapse where you need to be noticed and accessed quickly eg. diabetes and asthma.
To put figures into perspective for UK schools there are around 9-12 children with epilepsy in an average secondary school. There may be another 2-3 with diabetes. Several hundred children are diagnosed with strokes each year. Every week on average 12 people under the age of 35 are lost to sudden cardiac death.
A new problem highlighted by the University of Bath is medical incidents due to spiked vapes. Testing hundreds of confiscated vapes in 38 schools in England revealed 1 in 6 (16.6%) contained spice. Spice can cause a wide range of dangerous side effects, including cardiac arrest. Where do children go to vape?

MarieDeGournay · 26/04/2025 10:12

Llamasarellovely · 26/04/2025 09:58

It had me at 'the so-called Supreme Court' in line one!😂

BIWI · 26/04/2025 10:13

I clearly haven’t had enough coffee because I thought that was serious to start with!

<engages brain>

Merrymouse · 26/04/2025 10:22

TheRozzers · 25/04/2025 12:02

Saw this today from our friend Robin Moira White. Embarrassing.

"In particular Article 8 - respect for Private and Family life"

He's not being very private about it is he?

Doesn't this amount to harassment? Does this fall into the realms of a SLAPP order? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation#:~:text=The%20bill%20proposed%20a%20mechanism,no%20reasonable%20prospect%20of%20success.

(Except that RMW does think he is going to win).

Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation#:~:text=The%20bill%20proposed%20a%20mechanism,no%20reasonable%20prospect%20of%20success.

Merrymouse · 26/04/2025 10:32

Does anyone know what happened to the Freddy McConnell case - wasn't that going to be taken to the ECHR? Has it just all gone quiet?

FlowchartRequired · 26/04/2025 10:57

IDontHateRainbows · 26/04/2025 05:00

Huh? Whoever said people with invisible disabilities can't use the disabled loos?

There are a huge range of invisible disabilities. This is why Keeptoiletssafe listed examples of specific invisible disabilities that make enclosed, single toilets unsafe.

"I believe it’s disability discrimination to not have suitable toilets for those with invisible disabilities such as diabetes, epilepsy and heart conditions at work."

Keeptoiletssafe is not including those with other invisible disabilites such as needing to self catheterise, a stoma, incomplete paraplegics with bladder/bowel issues etc.

Chersfrozenface · 26/04/2025 10:57

Merrymouse · 26/04/2025 10:32

Does anyone know what happened to the Freddy McConnell case - wasn't that going to be taken to the ECHR? Has it just all gone quiet?

I can't find anything on line after the Supreme Court refused to hear McConnell's appeal because it did 'not raise an arguable point of law' in 2020.

Llamasarellovely · 26/04/2025 11:02

MarieDeGournay · 26/04/2025 10:12

It had me at 'the so-called Supreme Court' in line one!😂

I liked that the crowdfunded appeal would be informed by the lived experience of the Maugham family 😀

SinnerBoy · 26/04/2025 11:06

Jolyon has got an unblemished record.

6-0 wins for GC women!

Keeptoiletssafe · 26/04/2025 11:14

FlowchartRequired · 26/04/2025 10:57

There are a huge range of invisible disabilities. This is why Keeptoiletssafe listed examples of specific invisible disabilities that make enclosed, single toilets unsafe.

"I believe it’s disability discrimination to not have suitable toilets for those with invisible disabilities such as diabetes, epilepsy and heart conditions at work."

Keeptoiletssafe is not including those with other invisible disabilites such as needing to self catheterise, a stoma, incomplete paraplegics with bladder/bowel issues etc.

Thank you so much for this. I started this campaign because of a situation I could have prevented. By researching, for over two years now, on the design of toilets and how it affects safety, I can confidently say the gaps that single sex designs have save lives and prevent assaults. Its not even the single sex bit in many cases its the GAP that single sex designs often have, though even that design is decreasing, especially in schools. I can list deaths in schools that have happened recently behind a full height toilet door but I won't because its not fair on the families. I can list rapes that have happened in schools (behind closed full height doors presumably) but not always the location due to FOI others have done. I know in the past they were in store cupboards and disabled toilets when rapes were happening at around 1 per school day.

CriticalCondition · 26/04/2025 11:17

Blimey. JM has really lost it. I followed some links from that brilliant blog to his recent tweets. He's saying 'cis allies' should start using the 'wrong' toilets.

This doesn't seem very persuasive to me but I just can't put my finger on it...

Brainworm · 26/04/2025 11:18

It’s a shame that the money that trans allies are giving to JoMo isn’t being spent on campaigns and causes that will genuinely help trans people.

I don’t contribute to trans causes, but if I did, I would struggle to find a suitable place to donate. There is a massive gap/need for an advocacy organisation that will work with the guidelines to find suitable solutions.

Merrymouse · 26/04/2025 11:23

Chersfrozenface · 26/04/2025 10:57

I can't find anything on line after the Supreme Court refused to hear McConnell's appeal because it did 'not raise an arguable point of law' in 2020.

I assume that means that the case can't be taken any further, unless they go back and start again with a different point of law. (Otherwise the ECHR would waste a lot of time considering appeals that had been rejected by domestic courts).

Also, per ECHR website

"Applications must also be lodged with the
Court within four months following the
last judicial decision in the case, which will
usually be a judgment by the highest court
in the country concerned."

CriticalCondition · 26/04/2025 11:26

JM is really not helping his cause.

Law firms in a muddle. (Roll on Friday)
Swipe left for the next trending thread