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

[fromorbit]

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

Once again it's not about the use of the room, it's about the use of the women in the room and disregarding their feelings and ability to consent.

This needs projecting onto the house of bloody commons.

Why do barristers keep trying to reargue the SC ruling in lower courts? And bring up cases that have been superseded by the SC judgement? Surely that is pretty basic first year law degree stuff?

'You can pee in a policeman's helmet if you're pregnant', was the received wisdom I heard.

Don't tell the GLP, they'll claim police helmets are mixed sex and use that as their next argument.

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.

Men also have a right under the SC ruling to SS toilets. If any women use the toilet (especially given there may be open urinals) then the men could also claim discrimination and sexual harassment.

Because they can crowdfund for it.

I think they would have more luck if they could actually define the subset of men, but 10+ years of Stonewall campaigning on gender fluidity, self ID, and many genders has made that rather difficult.

Enough organisations have implemented 'inclusive' policies to demonstrate that in practice this just means that anyone can use any facility, so the only choices are single sex or mixed sex.

As the judge says, life has moved on.

😂

I agree. There's not enough dot joining.

People need to just keep saying it.

'It's not the room is it, in that case? It's the women in the room that is necessary for your premise.'

People need to see this for what it is. The use of women as a prop.

Because once you see that, it does immediately change your perspective.

And, as soon as it's mentioned, it's bloody obvious. I wish more of our lawyers would raise it.

Alongside requesting the explanation of exactly why a gender neutral toilet is outing.

It can only be outing for transwomen, if it is exclusively them using it.

So I'd dearly like to know why they think actual women would swerve it like the plague.

Disregarding consent would encompass attempts to scrap the 'sex by deception' law, too.

Exactly. There’s a big difference between exceptional or emergency use by the opposite sex and it being written into an employer’s policy that the opposite sex can habitually use them.

Sadly, an awful lot of people would still see no problem with that.

I’m quite pleased that they are doing. Having a judge shoot down their suitable only for Twitter and not a court of law arguments will be useful and also entertaining.

I never needed to use the men’s toilets when I was pregnant. Generally the only time I have seen this suggested by women is when there has been a huge queue at the ladies and none at all at the men’s - which is itself discrimination against women.

Exactly. I can't believe anyone would even attempt to argue that.

It's from the same school of wank arguments that men use your toilet at home, so..

Good Lord.

The last place I'd want to pee when I was pregnant was the men's.

It's much more likely that I would ask the women in the queue if I could be let through, because I was pregnant. And they would almost certainly say yes of course.

And there are many reasons why somebody might be desperate for the loo.

But surely there must come a point where it is beneath the dignity and professionalism of the barristers?

Sorry ladies - but while a pregnant woman can use pregnancy as a defence to peeing in many places you can still be done for criminal damage. So no, you cant pee in a policeman's helmet. You could possibly get away with peeing on his foot but I dont advise trying it.

No-one changes sex so a men pretending to be a woman cant be pregnant and cant use that defence.

Keeps em busy. And yes, the more they argue these ridiculous arguments, the more sunlight.

But you still use those of your own sex, or the disabled toilets not those of the opposite sex. It is a dangerous road to go down to suggest it is ok because it is an emergency. A lot of men who identify as trans would simply declare it is always an emergency.

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.

And a man doesn't cease to be a man if he puts on a dress and makeup.

Very strange argument to pursue under the circumstances.

Yes. Because when you can define a group of males (boys under 8) that can use changing rooms/toilets for females, in such a way that is reasonably objectively capable of being enforced, and doesn’t affect the dignity or safety of women, people are usually OK with it.

Interesting isn’t it. Because TW clearly feel that they are somehow perceived as ‘less womanly’ if they use a male toilet, or are ‘misgendered’ etc etc. whereas in reality they aren’t viewed as womanly in the first place. And a woman certainly wouldn’t feel less womanly using a unisex loo. Less safe, yes. Less womanly, no.

I wonder if some trans identifying people are deeply ashamed of being trans. Gay people have generally gone down the route that they have nothing to be ashamed of, hence the early Pride marches, with great success. I get the fear of people not understanding trans expression, but brazening that out seems a better strategy than trying to "live life as the opposite sex" with a constant fear the someone will notice, especially as it's very likely indeed that people have already noticed.

I agree, and I hope that R will have time to address it. If she is legally biologically female but looks somewhat masculine (eg like Semenya) then her employer was always allowed to ask her not to use the ladies but not required to. The SC ruling and guidance clarified this but didn't change it. Her previous use establishes a precedent and there's no new reason to stop it now, particularly as it's to her detriment. Line manager was wrong.