What will those scamps do next?

[theilltemperedqueenofspacetime]

Add your suggestions to the list.

One. Concede gracefully and work constructively with all for a better way forward.

Two. Violent demonstrations. Check.

Three. Civil disobedience. Check. (RMW and the card. You're a card, RMW!)

Four. Misinformation. Check. (Special mention for Harriet Harman and Lord Sumption.)

Five. Lobby to re-legalise single-gender as well as single-sex spaces. Could be a clever Trojan Horse, but I haven’t heard it suggested.

Six. Lobby to amend the Act to refer to gender (= sex or acquired gender) instead of sex. Stonewall gave up on this before so I guess it's not on the cards. Shame. I'd pay good money to see a TW explain to a parliamentary subcommittee why they deserve sex-based equality rights extended to them on account of them being small, puny, and impregnatable, and weighed down by thousands of years of oppression by men as a result.

Seven. File a test case and take it all the way up to ECHR citing breach of Article 8. Possible?

Eight. Apply for a High Court declaration that the Act (now we know what it really means) is incompatible with Article 8 and Goodwin. Check. The fox-botherer is crowdfunding for it.

Any lobbying to change the law to recognise gender identity will be a massive own goal, as it will focus everyone’s attention on how flimsy and subjective the concept is in the first place.

It would also serve to highlight that gender identity ideology is a belief as opposed to a fact, and as such can’t be used as a basis for law for everyone, as many are non-believers.

None of us noticed when the GRA was quietly ushered in (as can be seen from what an utter mess it is in the way it’s written as if gender identity is an actual fact), but we’ll all be watching this time, so I can’t see this getting far.

Nine. Fight for spaces for TW and/or TM under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment given that the EA mandates they can’t use the opposite single-sex facilities and they don’t feel comfortable or safe using facilities for their biological sex, given their gender reassignment.

I think that Five could be consistent with treating it purely as a belief. It would permit believers (trans and same-gender allies) to practise their faith exclusively amongst themselves.

They could lobby for government grants and create a charity. Professor Dame Katy Denise can advise.

Five would have to involve destroying legal protections for women, lesbian and gay men, and for women with trans identities in the EA, and making the whole act incoherent, as carefully explained in the judgment.

I mean, I know, the lobby would love it to go back to being incoherent and not working for anyone but them, but legally, I don't see that panning out really.

I don’t think they need to change the law for that though - they just have a mixed sex space aimed at women and transwomen- they can’t exclude other men, but those other men are unlikely to want to attend anyway.

I think that they would argue that trans-inclusive (single-gender) spaces could exist side-by-side with single-sex spaces (where single-sex-only isnt mandated by other laws) and people would have a choice.

So, lesbian clubs with and without men

But school toilets single-sex.

Obviously it's a dreadful idea, but I don't think it would have to be incoherent. I just think some ideas are so harmful that they should not be reified by law. Because they damage their adherents, proselytise, and constantly seek wider power.

Of course they don't need to. But they could claim that they do, and simpletons would think 'where's the harm?'