Brace yourself. GoodLaw Project have published: "Trans inclusion after the Supreme Court decision: FAQs Guidance for this time of uncertainty"

[TangenitalContrivences]

https://goodlawproject.org/resource/trans-inclusion-after-the-supreme-court-decision-faqs/

Surprisingly not 100% mad.

(however plenty of mad, just not 100%...)

for example:

• "It is still possible for women-only spaces to include trans women and – importantly – there are still certain general obligations on employers and service providers under the Equality Act to provide spaces and services for trans people.

Meanwhile other legal advice;

boswelltoday
https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1922940655291990186

🧵 Good Law Project's Misrepresentation of the Supreme Court's FWS Ruling: A Legal Reality Check

1️⃣ Good Law Project (GLP) recently published an FAQ on trans inclusion following the UK Supreme Court's For Women Scotland (FWS) ruling. Let’s clarify what the Court actually said—and what GLP wishes it had said.

2️⃣ GLP correctly states: after FWS, 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. This is significant. The Supreme Court explicitly confirmed that, under the Equality Act, a "woman" is biologically female—no exceptions, not even with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

3️⃣ GLP describes this ruling as a "narrow point." That is misleading. The Court's decision impacts every aspect of the Equality Act—from employment protections to single-sex spaces. The judgment has clearly established biological sex as legally significant.

4️⃣ GLP reassures GRC holders their certificates remain important. This is true—but not under the Equality Act. The Supreme Court specifically excluded the Equality Act from laws recognising acquired gender. A GRC affects your legal sex for pensions, marriage, etc.—but not equality law.

5️⃣ GLP highlights that trans individuals remain protected against discrimination via the "gender reassignment" characteristic. True—but crucially, the Court clarified that "gender reassignment" protections do not redefine sex-based rights or spaces under the Equality Act

6️⃣ The contentious point: GLP insists businesses can still include trans women in "women-only" spaces under "positive action." Legally adventurous? Certainly. Settled law? Absolutely not. The Supreme Court emphasised clarity: "single-sex" means biological sex, without exception.

7️⃣ If businesses include both sexes under "positive action," they effectively abandon single-sex status. The Equality Act permits providers to justify excluding trans individuals from single-sex spaces on privacy and safety grounds. GLP conveniently glosses over this.

8️⃣ GLP's claim of a general legal obligation to provide trans-inclusive spaces is overstated. The Supreme Court did not impose a duty to accommodate within single-sex spaces—it simply ensured robust discrimination protections remain elsewhere.

9️⃣ GLP argues human rights law protects trans women's right to define themselves as women. Individually, yes—but the Court clarified human rights do not override biological distinctions under the Equality Act, especially when privacy and dignity of others are involved.

🔟 Ultimately, GLP's FAQ is advocacy rather than neutral legal guidance. It blurs the lines between what the Supreme Court actually said and what GLP wants it to mean, creating confusion where the Court provided clarity.

🎯 Bottom line: The Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed biological sex as fundamental in equality law. GLP’s FAQ might reassure its audience—but it does not accurately reflect the legal reality set by the UK's highest court.

Just when I think I've managed to understand the ruling and why the claims/arguments of the trans side are incorrect, something new pops up to confuse me

6️⃣ The contentious point: GLP insists businesses can still include trans women in "women-only" spaces under "positive action." Legally adventurous? Certainly. Settled law? Absolutely not. The Supreme Court emphasised clarity: "single-sex" means biological sex, without exception.

I've seen positive action mentioned as a possible loophole several times this week but I I know very little on the subject.

Could anyone kindly explain to me in simple terms what it means and why the trans side believe this allows them into single sex spaces.

I did read a very helpful post yesterday that explained it (possibly on the WI thread) but I haven't been able to find it again..

ChatGPT says that in this context, positive action is: take this with a pinch of salt but is better than I knew.

In the Good Law Project’s (GLP) FAQ on trans inclusion, “positive action” refers to lawful steps that organisations can take under the Equality Act 2010 to help disadvantaged or underrepresented groups — in this case, trans people.

🔍 What is “Positive Action”?

Positive action is defined in Sections 158–159 of the Equality Act. It allows — but does not require — employers, service providers, and public bodies to take proportionate measures to:

1. Overcome or minimise disadvantage experienced by people with a protected characteristic (e.g. trans people under “gender reassignment”).
2. Meet different needs of people from such groups.
3. Encourage participation where their participation is disproportionately low.

🚫 It’s not the same as positive discrimination, which would be unlawfully treating someone better solely because of a protected characteristic (e.g. giving a job to a trans person only because they are trans, when a non-trans candidate is better qualified).

🏳️‍⚧️ GLP’s Use of the Term

In context, the Good Law Project argues that trans inclusion policies — such as allowing trans women to use women’s spaces or creating unisex options — could be examples of positive action under the law. They imply:

• These actions aim to address the disadvantage and exclusion trans people face in everyday life.
• Organisations implementing such policies aren’t necessarily breaking the law, especially if they consider the impact on all service users and act proportionately.
• The Supreme Court judgment on biological sex does not ban such positive action, provided it doesn’t unfairly discriminate against others.

🧠 Example

A leisure centre with male and female changing rooms might:

• Create individual cubicles or a gender-neutral space, in addition to male/female ones.
• Train staff on respectful engagement with trans users.
• These steps could count as positive action — aiming to make services more accessible for trans people without unlawfully excluding others.

⚖️ Legal Boundaries

Positive action must be proportionate — meaning:

• It should be carefully justified (e.g. based on evidence of disadvantage).
• It should not unfairly impact the rights of others (e.g. biological females needing single-sex spaces for safety or privacy).

This is where conflict sometimes arises — and where interpretations differ between groups like the EHRC, GLP, and various campaigners on both sides.

Positive action for an employer would be something like: "our senior staff are disproportionately white, let's have a talent programme aimed at ethnic minorities that gives them the skills and confidence to go for promotion"

Positive discrimination (unlawful) would be: "our senior staff are disproportionately white, let's set aside specific jobs for ethnic minority candidates to fulfil a quota"

It seems to me that GLP are mining the concept of positive action to look for a way to have single sex spaces that are mixed sex. I don't believe this is compatible with the law as explained by the SC.

The concept of positive action, or reasonable adjustment if we want to draw on the experience of disability provision, could be useful in finding ways to improve the lot of trans people, but I don't believe they will provide the trans community with what its activists are demanding.

Legally adventurous

I think that's my new favourite phrase. It sounds like Sir Humphrey telling Jim Hacker that something is a "brave decision"

So helpful it needs repeating frequently everywhere.

'Positive action' in terms of providing additional services, spaces and resources - wonderful. However it is obviously immediately going to fall foul of this lobby's contempt for women and women's rights/protections, and seeing women as nothing more than man-owned resources who won't stop answering back. It will be an attempt to sway businesses to be 'inclusive' by wrecking women's rights to single sex spaces in effect, with the whole 'look at us being so open minded and right on that we help men trample women's rights' thing going on.

And women will sue, and under the law will win.

Hence it being 'brave' and 'legally adventurous'.

There are boundaries to how far reality can be bent to accomodate men who wish to identify as women (I see at this point everyone including GLP has abandoned any pretence that this is about anything other than men and the barrier of women's rights). The boundary is other people's rights, and their legal protections.

But I suspect the ECHR will need to establish that. As Peter Daly has said, if the lobby wishes to push it that far, and it does not go their way, they could end up wishing they hadn't as it will then impact law across Europe and not just in the UK. And let's be honest, for them to win would mean that the ECHR would need to confirm that the human rights of men trump and basically destroy the human and legal rights of women and homosexuals.

That doesn't mean at this point I would be that surprised, the past few weeks have been depressingly eye opening regarding the crap hand dealt if you have to be born a woman. But they would have to openly in essence legalise male surpremacism. The whole 'we cannot exist without destroying them (and we matter and they don't)' would have to be hashed out.

Michael Foran's detailed examination and refutation of Wigley's claims has implications for the GLP's ideas.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5335602-michael-foran-for-women-scotland-is-legal-recognition-of-biological-sex-a-violation-of-human-rights

Can absolutely picture those very words from Sir Humphrey! 😄

It may seem a derailment but I recently found a belief statement which I believe lies at the root of a lot of the behaviour of TRAs. I was looking up the reasons why the Catholic church believes that women cannot become priests. I expected appeals to tradition, and that the priest stands in for Christ at the altar, and I found those. But what I was gobsmacked by was a belief that women are subordinate, sourced from Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. This they based on Genesis 2, with the rib and Eve's disobedience. (Not Genesis 1 with both male and female created in God's image. No-one ever does, they prefer the fairy tale, probably adopted from Babylon.) (Catholics aren't creationists, so why appeal to this story?)
This one belief, shared by almost all branches of Christianity, and practically all other religions, seems to lie at the heart of the way the loudest men think, and informs a good many others. They expect us to serve and to get out of the way. It's as if there's a portion of the male mind hard wired with it, like a migrant bird is hard wired with its route. Very difficult to eradicate.

Who is this boswelltoday and is he talking with legal expertise?

Jollyon is a tax lawyer with a stratospheric failure rate for cases his organisations takes. And one of the leading trans lawyers was on Woman's Hour on Monday arguing that because women take their 3 year old sons into women's changing rooms that means that middle aged men must be legally entitled to be in there alongside them

With such "legal minds" as these, suspect the hysteria about men being told they can't access women undressing etc any longer will soon pass. 😅

Religion is absolutely one of the root causes of misogyny and TRAs are misogynistic to their very core.

I don’t see how this would work. What the SC ruling made clear was that when looking at providing for and ensuring a lack of discrimination against women, you must be considering biological women. So if you need single sex spaces to provide for women’s needs in the workplace, you need to provide single sex spaces. And adding any men means you aren’t providing single sex spaces. Positive actions that mean you discriminate against a different group of people is not lawful.

Trans advocates need to start looking at their needs as a distinct characteristic and stop pretending it is fair to obliterate another characteristic to given then what they want.

Just wondering when the GLP will follow SW and put on their website the disclaimer “We do not provide legal advice”.

Plus is “positive action”, the new “ahead of the Law” previously espoused by Stonewall?

Christ so many words and effort. Men stay out of women’s spaces. It really is that simple.

We should thank GLP for publishing their guidance ahead of the EHRC guidance. EHRC can ensure their guidance heads off the positive action = inclusion of males in women’s spaces nonsense. Top work Jolyon and friends. 👏

Of course, the old adage about a lie being half way around the world before the truth even has its boots on stands here. It’s a classic attempt to muddy the waters.

GLP have published their letter. Link to letter in attached.

https://goodlawproject.org/were-bringing-a-legal-challenge-to-the-ehrcs-interim-update/

So they're arguing about toilets and men demanding access to women in women's toilets? Not changing rooms, showers, hospital wards, sport? A man's right to to pee alongside women? 😂

That seems a little light on detail. Presumably they'll be presenting their killer of an argument that as a woman can take a 2 year old male toddler into the women's toilets, all middle aged trans identifying men must be allowed in with her as well? 😎

He must enjoy losing.

The SC's judgement couldn't have been clearer. How on earth does he propose challenging the EHRC for issuing guidelines based on that very judgement?

Enid Blyton couldn't have made up a Topsy Turvy land resembling the parallel universe this guy seems to inhabit.

It's the wedge.

Once men are allowed in a women's space sometimes, you just go on shoving. And as often demonstrated, toilets are the bit many shrug about if they haven't fully thought it through.

What the Commission regards as “clear”, is spelt out in “the Notice”, namely that it will not be consulting on “legal aspects” of the judgment.

I'm not being funny, but was the GLP's letter written by Dr Evil?

Once upon a time they might (probably would) have got away with positive action as a reason for companies to include transwomen on all woman short lists and other such groups.

But we are past no debate and women are becoming less fearful about speaking up. Companies are beginning to listen to their insurers and pay heed to their customer base.

Good try - not going to fly.

The reasoning in the letter is not very easy to follow, but I'd say that Jolyon is proposing an interesting and imaginative litigation strategy, based on the idea that the EHRC has wilfully misintepreted what Jolyon hallucinates the SC to have decided.

At least it's a step back from him thundering away about the illegitimacy of the SC. He seems to have done the anger stage before the denial stage, though we might see the anger stage make a comeback when he's told to sling his hook.