Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Good Law Project suing the EHRC and Bridget Phillipson - letter before action

410 replies

OhBuggerandArse · 16/05/2025 15:30

Sorry if this has already been shared - here are the links to their letter and statement. Looking forward to the Mumsnet analysis :-)

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

https://goodlawproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Letter-to-the-Equality-and-Human-Rights-Commission-16-May-2025_Redacted.pdf

OP posts:
Thread gallery
27
Glamourreader · 16/05/2025 15:34

Wow, they really, really, really want to use the ladies, and the ladies in the ladies in order to feel like ladies

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 16/05/2025 15:37

Bring it on!!! 🍿 🍿🍿

tripleginandtonic · 16/05/2025 15:40

Well, they've raised the money they may as well flush it down the toilet again.

eatfigs · 16/05/2025 15:47

I'm appreciating the tweets Jolyon cited in his footnotes.

Good Law Project suing the EHRC and Bridget Phillipson - letter before action
Theeyeballsinthesky · 16/05/2025 15:50

Never interrupt your enemy in the midst of making a mistake

I can’t wait for the fox botherer and his band of merry thems to have their day in court

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 16/05/2025 15:51

He cited that as evidence for getting rid of sex-segregated spaces and services? He really is a few sandwiches short of a picnic, in that case.

Nameychangington · 16/05/2025 15:52

The intersex claimant will also require the Minister and EHRC to explain what spaces intersex people should use and how that stance complies with the law.

This is so offensive to people with DSDs. Everyone with a DSD knows full well what sex they are and what toilets are for them. DSDs are nothing to do with gender ideology and using people with a rare medical condition to try to prop up your ideology is really fucking low. I'd bet my house this 'intersex' individual is just a common or garden AGP.

atoo · 16/05/2025 15:56

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 16/05/2025 15:51

He cited that as evidence for getting rid of sex-segregated spaces and services? He really is a few sandwiches short of a picnic, in that case.

I assumed this was a joke, but it's true!

That tweet is cited as evidence for the fact that "Trans women are seeing their faces posted online with the caption, 'this is not a woman'."

What monomania one must have to see that as the most salient thing about the tweet.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 16/05/2025 15:56

Couple of interesting posts here. (Will show up in a moment.)

Good Law Project suing the EHRC and Bridget Phillipson - letter before action
Good Law Project suing the EHRC and Bridget Phillipson - letter before action
Conxis · 16/05/2025 15:57

Oh dear!
Legal people on here, please tell me does this have ANY chance of succeeding ???

ClawedButler · 16/05/2025 15:57

They need to rename their project because it is neither of those things.

ScrollingLeaves · 16/05/2025 16:00

Nameychangington · 16/05/2025 15:52

The intersex claimant will also require the Minister and EHRC to explain what spaces intersex people should use and how that stance complies with the law.

This is so offensive to people with DSDs. Everyone with a DSD knows full well what sex they are and what toilets are for them. DSDs are nothing to do with gender ideology and using people with a rare medical condition to try to prop up your ideology is really fucking low. I'd bet my house this 'intersex' individual is just a common or garden AGP.

Better make sure the minister understands though because a lot of people must be confused and taken in by the ‘intersex’ wedge.

MistyGreenAndBlue · 16/05/2025 16:06

So... hold on. The guidance about how to follow the law is not only " needlessly cruel" but also somehow "unlawful"
Am I missing something? 😂

Another2Cats · 16/05/2025 16:19

Their letter starts off with a whole load of waffle about the history of trans rights cases.

Then, by the time you get to page 16, it gets on to the main issue.

The GLP point out that the interim guidance says

"In workplaces, it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets, as well as sufficient single-sex changing and washing facilities where these facilities are needed."

But the Workplace Regulations 1992 say

"separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside."

Or, in other words, separate self contained toilets used by one person at a time are a suitable alternative to single sex toilets.

They seem to think that this is a huge "gotcha".

But they do go on to say that since this is done under the Workplace Regs and not the Equality Act then the FWS case has no effect when it comes to toilets in the workplace.

As a result, they say, it is necessary to look to the GRA 2004 and that people with a GRC should still be able to use toilets of the opposite sex in a workplace.

They then go on to explain some way in which service providers could also allow trans people into public toilets of the opposite sex if they wished to.

I have no idea how the Equality Act might interact with the Workplace Regs (or if the two even do interact) but this is the argument that GLP are putting forward.
.

The second ground of their claim is that since they believe that the interim advice is wrong that issuing it has been a breach of the Human Rights Act and so should be withdrawn.
.

The third ground is that if the interim guidance is correct then the law is incompatible with the Human Rights Act.
.

Oh, and by the way, they also want:

"The Commission is requested to withdraw its Interim Update immediately and to state publicly that the Interim Update is of no effect and its advice should not be followed."
.

How strong a case or otherwise this is, I have no idea. But this is their latest move.

TheOtherRaven · 16/05/2025 16:26

😆

musicalfrog · 16/05/2025 16:27

Thanks for posting this. I needed a good laugh.

🤣

TheOtherRaven · 16/05/2025 16:29

I can hear the crunch of Michael Foran, Peter Daly, Naomi Cunningham and Akua Reindorf sharpening their pens as they murmur oh ffs..

CraftandGlamour · 16/05/2025 16:29

What they mean is breach of man rights not human. They never consider the breaching of womens rights an issue.

TheOtherRaven · 16/05/2025 16:30

CraftandGlamour · 16/05/2025 16:29

What they mean is breach of man rights not human. They never consider the breaching of womens rights an issue.

No the whole horror is that this law would require men to actually respect women and gay rights.

In ways that present really inconvenient boundaries.

TangenitalContrivences · 16/05/2025 16:31

posting this so people can compare and contrast comments on this side, from the other side, and see what the chances might actually be of this working:

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1ko1425/good_law_project_bringing_a_legal_challenge_to/

TheOtherRaven · 16/05/2025 16:34

There still seems to be a belief that enough Sad Stories will mean that women's and gay rights will be destroyed in law.

Hoardasurass · 16/05/2025 16:35

Conxis · 16/05/2025 15:57

Oh dear!
Legal people on here, please tell me does this have ANY chance of succeeding ???

No. A snowball has a better chance of surviving a trip to hell than this has of surviving a dismissal hearing

Yatuway · 16/05/2025 16:38

This should be fun.

DialSquare · 16/05/2025 16:40

musicalfrog · 16/05/2025 16:27

Thanks for posting this. I needed a good laugh.

🤣

The Good Laugh Project!

Conxis · 16/05/2025 16:43

Hoardasurass · 16/05/2025 16:35

No. A snowball has a better chance of surviving a trip to hell than this has of surviving a dismissal hearing

Thank you @Hoardasurass
In that case I’ll just pull up a chair and get my 🍿