Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Good Law Practice launch a EHCR/Supreme Court challenge over toilets

770 replies

fromorbit · 07/06/2025 07:38

After raising over 418K it turns out the GLP's amazing legal case is all about toilets. Details:

https://archive.is/TWRTl

No doubt it will fail like most of their previous legal cases.

Previous thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5336208-good-law-project-suing-the-ehrc-and-bridget-phillipson-letter-before-action?page=1

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

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

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5336208-good-law-project-suing-the-ehrc-and-bridget-phillipson-letter-before-action?page=1

OP posts:
Thread gallery
50
ArabellaScott · 12/11/2025 22:14

Signalbox · 12/11/2025 21:57

Just caught up on this. GLP's case is batshit crazy. They can't possibly win. Is this their attempt to get to the European Court?

Tennis court?

ArabellaScott · 12/11/2025 22:15

Lilyfreedom · 12/11/2025 22:03

For those who ask if it is usual for a judge to be so interventionist, in the Admin Court it is. He has a limited amount of time (the GLP silks have already gone over their allocation) and needs to understand what their point actually is. I am not sure he managed to get any clarity.

As I have said before, as lawyers we work with definitions. Without definitions, the law crumbles. The inability of the GLP to define trans people (and some of their submissions might offend some of their more vocal donors) is irritating the judge.

Finally, there are some lovely points in there about the 1992 Regs and applicability to work places. I am afraid the argument that FWS "only applies to boards in Scotland" is as dead as Croft after this...

Thanks.

there are some lovely points in there about the 1992 Regs and applicability to work places. I am afraid the argument that FWS "only applies to boards in Scotland" is as dead as Croft after this

So, do the Judge's remarks create a precedent, here?

Lilyfreedom · 12/11/2025 22:18

Not unless they end up in his judgment...but it doesn't sound he has been persuaded out of that view on the evidence of today, and as it is relied upon by GLP he will likely have to deal with it.

Lilyfreedom · 12/11/2025 22:22

Swift J is a smart guy - this is a nice little article on him before he was appointed. I like his first comment "the only court you absolutely have to win in is the last one" (i.e the Supreme Court).

He did rule that the Rwanda plan was lawful, which was unfortunate.

Article

Interview with Jonathan Swift QC

Anthony Inglese meets former First Treasury Counsel Jonathan Swift QC who reflects on his path to law, a £17bn public-purse-saving ‘case of the century’, relentless days as the government’s top lawyer, and rebuilding a practice in the opposite corner...

https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/interview-jonathan-swift-qc

EnfysPreseli · 12/11/2025 22:47

ArabellaScott · 12/11/2025 22:14

Tennis court?

Show quote history

Food court?

SidewaysOtter · 12/11/2025 23:01

EnfysPreseli · 12/11/2025 22:47

Food court?

Show quote history

The Courts sale?

<one for the older TERFs among us>

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 12/11/2025 23:24

I’m confused by the intersex persons story. It seems they’re biologically and legally female and present as female but identify as intersex and have been asked to use gender neutral toilets by their employer. This seems irrelevant to the EHRC guidance no? Seems like their employer has got it wrong here and she may have a case against them? Or have I got that wrong?

RedToothBrush · 12/11/2025 23:28

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 12/11/2025 23:24

I’m confused by the intersex persons story. It seems they’re biologically and legally female and present as female but identify as intersex and have been asked to use gender neutral toilets by their employer. This seems irrelevant to the EHRC guidance no? Seems like their employer has got it wrong here and she may have a case against them? Or have I got that wrong?

It probably is.

Never let some facts and existing legal rights get in the way of a GLP case.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 12/11/2025 23:41

MyAmpleSheep · 12/11/2025 21:11

This is fascinating (transcription errors corrected by me)

J – what do you mean managed, the regs say there should be separate rooms,

DS – a men’s toilet doesn’t cease to be a men’s toilet if a pregnant woman uses it, or a woman cleans it or if a TM uses it.

J – so these occasional cases mean that a TW can use a women’s toilet at any time. Let’s take a step back – employers have to only provide the room and then do nothing, it’s a free for all.

DS – if one has a free for all and the entire convention breaks down, I’m not suggestng that, I’m suggesting that you can have trans inclusive toilets.

J – you are saying that the employer has to provide m/f toilets but can allow TW and TM to use the toilets of LG. What are you saying? Is it a definitional problem. An employer must provide the facility, but an employer could operate a policy of trans inclusion.

DS – yes, that is precisely the policy the EHRC recommended in 2011,
J – yes but life has moved on

Life has indeed moved on.

It’s always interesting when Twitter “logic” is presented in court. 🤭

RedToothBrush · 12/11/2025 23:46

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 12/11/2025 23:41

It’s always interesting when Twitter “logic” is presented in court. 🤭

Show quote history

Thankfully fuckwittery is not a legally protected characteristic.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 13/11/2025 00:20

So as far as I can gather the GLPs argument is that employers are to practice cognitive dissonance. They are to comply with the law on providing single sex spaces but have a policy of mixed sex access.

Did they really think this would wash?

RedToothBrush · 13/11/2025 00:32

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 13/11/2025 00:20

So as far as I can gather the GLPs argument is that employers are to practice cognitive dissonance. They are to comply with the law on providing single sex spaces but have a policy of mixed sex access.

Did they really think this would wash?

Honestly, I think this is what the majority of Be Kinders ultimately think. The argument is made constantly on these boards and they can't comprehend that the SC ruling on biological sex is the thing that gives those who have under gone gender reassignment legal protection. Without reference to sex you don't know who the trans people are in legal terms as you can't describe them this you can't give them legal protections!

They want to erase sex from law - if they do that I could claim to be a transwoman and the law has no way of disagreeing with my claim of identity. It simply doesn't work.

PriOn1 · 13/11/2025 07:50

RedToothBrush · 13/11/2025 00:32

Honestly, I think this is what the majority of Be Kinders ultimately think. The argument is made constantly on these boards and they can't comprehend that the SC ruling on biological sex is the thing that gives those who have under gone gender reassignment legal protection. Without reference to sex you don't know who the trans people are in legal terms as you can't describe them this you can't give them legal protections!

They want to erase sex from law - if they do that I could claim to be a transwoman and the law has no way of disagreeing with my claim of identity. It simply doesn't work.

Show quote history

The main reason I disengaged from the whole concept of so-called “trans rights” as soon as I actually started to read about it was that I can’t bear even low levels of cognitive dissonance these days. I spent so many years in relationships which required it on some level. It took me too long to work out how detrimental it was to my mental health.

I can’t do it any more. I guess many people don’t have that experience, hence their willingness to go along with it.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 13/11/2025 07:58

PriOn1 · 13/11/2025 07:50

The main reason I disengaged from the whole concept of so-called “trans rights” as soon as I actually started to read about it was that I can’t bear even low levels of cognitive dissonance these days. I spent so many years in relationships which required it on some level. It took me too long to work out how detrimental it was to my mental health.

I can’t do it any more. I guess many people don’t have that experience, hence their willingness to go along with it.

Show quote history

I agree, and also have that experience.

BundleBoogie · 13/11/2025 08:01

SidewaysOtter · 12/11/2025 23:01

The Courts sale?

<one for the older TERFs among us>

Show quote history

Nailed it! I believe the strapline was an exciting ‘Come to Courts?’ Simple genius 😆

BundleBoogie · 13/11/2025 08:09

MyAmpleSheep · 12/11/2025 21:11

This is fascinating (transcription errors corrected by me)

J – what do you mean managed, the regs say there should be separate rooms,

DS – a men’s toilet doesn’t cease to be a men’s toilet if a pregnant woman uses it, or a woman cleans it or if a TM uses it.

J – so these occasional cases mean that a TW can use a women’s toilet at any time. Let’s take a step back – employers have to only provide the room and then do nothing, it’s a free for all.

DS – if one has a free for all and the entire convention breaks down, I’m not suggestng that, I’m suggesting that you can have trans inclusive toilets.

J – you are saying that the employer has to provide m/f toilets but can allow TW and TM to use the toilets of LG. What are you saying? Is it a definitional problem. An employer must provide the facility, but an employer could operate a policy of trans inclusion.

DS – yes, that is precisely the policy the EHRC recommended in 2011,
J – yes but life has moved on

Life has indeed moved on.

Absolutely fascinating. This argument is starting to sound like that ‘if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound’ sort of reasoning.

As a pregnant woman, the smell of a mens toilets would not have been compatible with life for me but are they suggesting that ‘tw’ will be required to put a large warning sign up if using the ladies?

DuchessofReality · 13/11/2025 08:10

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 13/11/2025 00:20

So as far as I can gather the GLPs argument is that employers are to practice cognitive dissonance. They are to comply with the law on providing single sex spaces but have a policy of mixed sex access.

Did they really think this would wash?

That is a very succinct way of putting it. And is, of course, Stonewall law in action. ‘These are for women only, but TWAW’.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 13/11/2025 08:17

As usual the big legal barrier is the one they cannot ever let themselves see - women have rights too, guys .

It's not all and only about you. You are not the only people with rights.

Datun · 13/11/2025 08:17

DS – a men’s toilet doesn’t cease to be a men’s toilet if a pregnant woman uses it, or a woman cleans it or if a TM uses it.

If women, pregnant or otherwise, or women who identify as men, routinely use it, then no it's not a men's toilet, is it. It's mixed sex.

For goodness sake. What kind of stupid argument is that?

As a pp pointed out, the desperation is to be able to use the toilet that says women only.

It's access to women that is key.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 13/11/2025 08:19

How do you provide women with their legal right to a single sex space (for their equality, their access, to meet their needs) if men can freely wander in and out of it based on their gender choice at the time?

Their answer is, lets be honest, that women don't matter.

I would love to get this through the ECtHR.

Harassedevictee · 13/11/2025 08:27

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 12/11/2025 23:24

I’m confused by the intersex persons story. It seems they’re biologically and legally female and present as female but identify as intersex and have been asked to use gender neutral toilets by their employer. This seems irrelevant to the EHRC guidance no? Seems like their employer has got it wrong here and she may have a case against them? Or have I got that wrong?

I agree.

People with DSDs are an exception. There are historical cases where male babies have been medically neutered and at puberty been given female hormones.

This however is different to males who were wrongly sexed at birth, had no intervention then at puberty went through male puberty but decided to continue to present as female.

Datun · 13/11/2025 08:28

It's quite interesting and not a little satisfying watching people tying themselves in knots trying to explain why this subset of men are to be given access to vulnerable women and girls, and what the (made up and constantly changing) criteria is.

We've seen long screeds on here from trans identified men trying to justify why our boundaries should be dismantled and our consent ignored. There's a grim sort of enjoyment watching it being played out in a court, with normal people looking on.

Not least because, transactivism has got to such a pitch, that a lot of people have more or less caught on.

Talk about missing the Zeitgeist.

Merrymouse · 13/11/2025 08:30

MyAmpleSheep · 12/11/2025 21:11

This is fascinating (transcription errors corrected by me)

J – what do you mean managed, the regs say there should be separate rooms,

DS – a men’s toilet doesn’t cease to be a men’s toilet if a pregnant woman uses it, or a woman cleans it or if a TM uses it.

J – so these occasional cases mean that a TW can use a women’s toilet at any time. Let’s take a step back – employers have to only provide the room and then do nothing, it’s a free for all.

DS – if one has a free for all and the entire convention breaks down, I’m not suggestng that, I’m suggesting that you can have trans inclusive toilets.

J – you are saying that the employer has to provide m/f toilets but can allow TW and TM to use the toilets of LG. What are you saying? Is it a definitional problem. An employer must provide the facility, but an employer could operate a policy of trans inclusion.

DS – yes, that is precisely the policy the EHRC recommended in 2011,
J – yes but life has moved on

Life has indeed moved on.

I acknowledge that these days I am less likely to frequent the parts of this website that deal with pregnancy, but I can't ever remember people suggesting that pregnant women should use or had a right to use men's loos - have I missed something?

It was never mentioned at NCT classes.

Brainworm · 13/11/2025 08:32

Datun · 13/11/2025 08:17

DS – a men’s toilet doesn’t cease to be a men’s toilet if a pregnant woman uses it, or a woman cleans it or if a TM uses it.

If women, pregnant or otherwise, or women who identify as men, routinely use it, then no it's not a men's toilet, is it. It's mixed sex.

For goodness sake. What kind of stupid argument is that?

As a pp pointed out, the desperation is to be able to use the toilet that says women only.

It's access to women that is key.

Edited

I once was involved in a school which, following intervention from the pupil led school council, swapped the girls and boys loos around - the boys loos did not have urinals. This happened because the boys claimed that their loos were smelly and the girl’s loos weren’t. Needless to say, the boys’ predicament didn’t change as a result.

According to GLP logic, following the switch, all boys were using the girls loos and vice versa.