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

[OhBuggerandArse]

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

I’d love to see a study on the height of trans men. My hypothesis is that they are average or below height for women - part of their reason for transitioning?

Hmmmm istr puberty blockers increase height ... because puberty actually puts a brake on growth. May differ between sexes. I'll see if I can find the reference.

she is entitled to dignity and protection...

He genuinely won't see the multiple irony's in this, will he?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3005754/#:~:text=Because%20ultimate%20fusion%20of%20the,allow%20for%20greater%20height%20potential.

Estrogen fuses growth plates in both sexes, so estrogen suppression can allow for greater height. I think it is complex, though, maybe someone who has better understanding can explain it!

She said this only a few weeks ago. Such an unfortunate coincidence...

Men can't have women's rights, Claire. You're absolutely free to use mixed sex spaces with men if you want to personally be with them in a state of undress, your body and your consent.

By my reckoning, she’s at most 5 years younger than him. He’s a weird fish.

She appears to have deactivated. The plot thickens.

I can't imagine why he thought this was an acceptable thing to tweet to his 400k followers. Guilt? Fundraising? Narcissistic rage?

Guaranteed his next move will be another blinky video about "Why are the creepy GC people talking about my wife's breasts?"

He’s getting a huge amount of pushback on X, no one is buying it.

Is that true? Thousands of women have had to have mastectomies because of cancer. I cannot believe they would be challenged in a changing room.

I'm intrigued by the assertion that this is happening to thousands of women up and down the country every day.

On what is he basing this?

This is desperate stuff from JoMo. Awful. His poor wife, having her breast cancer used like this.

Reminds me a bit of Billy Bragg a couple of years ago having a hit of the vapours about Dahl's The Witches and imagining that the "kids at school" would be calling your Mum a witch if she had to wear a wig after chemo. Arguing with Suzanne Moore iirc. Utter nonsense. (I've been in that position and the "kids at school" with D1 clubbed together to buy me flowers & a card.)

Women who have had mastectomies don't suddenly look like men.

I wouldn’t feel too sorry for Mrs Maugham. Cut from the same cloth as her husband.

I know it's superficial, but so much of this issue is based on the idea of the passing trans person. And if might make more sense if they were people who were a bit androgynous looking to begin with. Or, I know there are tall and broad women out there, so tall and broad transmen must be a possibility.

But - purely anecdotally - that rarely seems to be the case. It's often small petite women who aren't remotely masculine who are convinced they'll pass as the opposite sex. Same as the classic big burly MtF transitioner. And that triggers a response where our brains can't believe what we're supposed to see.

He has a very vivid imagination, and I'm content to leave it at that.

JM’s positioning in the mastectomy posts is that of wanting to protect the feelings of women when they are missexed and concern that this could lead to them having trouble accessing women only spaces. We too are worried about women’s feelings (not just limited to any upset if they are missexed) and to women being able to access women only spaces. We seem to have found some common ground!

Does this mean that if we resolved the issue of women being inappropriately challenged about their right to use female only spaces, JM would be happy?

He is throwing everything and the kitchen sink at trying to justify why the SC ruling is wrong.

He pulls in those who have little interest or skin in the game, as they buy into what, at a glance, could appear to be an injustice. I guess this is why he keeps going. That and the Japanese Soldier issue.

It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and at some level he knows this.

That would be the wife that works as a consultant for sewage pumping Southern Water and has previously worked for Crapita. Yea, my sympathy is limited.

I'm going to feel sorry for her on the grounds of being a fellow human on whom I wouldn't wish cancer.

While continuing to wonder what kind of woman remains married to one of the most obnoxious misogynists I can think of.

He has a very vivid imagination, and I'm content to leave it at that.

Wondering about the psychology of having a huge amount of concern for imaginary women in imaginary situations, but no concern for real women in real situations.

If you really want to add fuel to the fire

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1170.html

Farrukh Husain was admitted as a solicitor in 2014. He became active on
the social media site then known as Twitter, using an account with a
profile which identified him as a lawyer. In several tweets, he identified
himself as an employment solicitor. In May 2021, the Solicitors'
Regulatory Authority ("SRA") received a complaint and reviewed his Twitter
feed. It started an investigation and later brought disciplinary
proceedings in respect of tweets which it said were offensive and in some
cases antisemitic, and about comments made in correspondence with the SRA,
which it said were offensive.

Hands up, I am a shallow, cynical old besom who is far too quick to make a judgement, I managed to read as far as the phrase

“on behalf of ourselves”

and metaphorically fell on the floor laughing.

Really? A serious challenge to the highest court in the land, purported to come from educated legally trained people, and in the very first clunky paragraph they display their ignorance of a basic English grammatical convention which - in my very humble opinion - doesn’t bode well for their grasp of very complicated legal arguments.

Going off to pedant’s corner for a piece of cake and some strong coffee so I have the strength to read the rest of the letter.

Thinking about it - I guess the founding view is that men are real people.

Women, not being men, aren't real people.

But imaginary women work like a double negative - the non-reals cancel out and they become real people again.

Like I said. It's like he doesn't know they law or the way it works in the UK. He isn't a foreign agent is he ?