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

What is the process? I have never been clear on what happens if a DSD like PAIS is discovered after the birth is registered and somebody wants to change the registration? I think there was a situation recently where a baby was accidentally registered as the wrong sex (no DSD), and a note was made on the register? Is this the process that could be used by somebody with a DSD?

That reminds me of the story that they initially decided that the bits of returned airplanes most frequently found to have been shot were the bits that needed protecting, rather than the bits that had not been shot.

Mmn. I think the absolute lack of factoring in of women's rights, needs, equality of access and inclusion consideration etc is the dead give away about the information sources.

The case could immediately be re argued on more or less the same grounds but from the point of view of women. Which is what happened, all the way through to the SC. Hence the judgment.

It's all explained in the judgment, you cannot have some men and some spaces and the law still work coherently for anyone other than trans identified men.

I do love this 'balance' word which basically means 'give men what they want and sod women'.

Obvious question asked for years all the way up to the SCJ - if loos don't matter, we're saying that some women must accept having nothing, no access and no inclusion to provide men with their preferred choice from everything.

How is it ok to decide that some women can be excluded? Loos do matter. Women are (supposedly) legally equal to men.

Yes, that's exactly the process, with supporting medical evidence. The correction takes retroactive effect, and there's case law (attempted marriage annulment) to confirm this is now the person's official biological sex. Because these individuals have sex traits from both development pathways, the Judge decided it was pragmatic to take into account their personal preference and treatments they'd had, in contrast to the April Ashley case (no DSDs involved).

From 2019

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/variations-in-sex-characteristics-call-for-evidence/variations-in-sex-characteristics-technical-paper#chapter-6-sex-assignment-birth-registration-and-correcting-birth-certificates

Somewhat oddly, a link in that paper goes to Californian legislation.

I can't find any follow-on from this call for evidence, and it seems to be the only link on the page under 'policy changes'.

We also heard that the criteria of gonads, genitalia and chromosomes has not kept pace with medical advancements, as it doesn’t recognise evidence of variations in hormone receptors which could prove that the sex assignation was wrong at birth.

Gender woo alert!

https://dsdfamilies.org/charity/latest-news/supremecourtruling2025

'In the UK, all individuals born with DSD have a registered sex at birth, which is considered their biological sex. When a baby is born with an atypical genital appearance, further medical assessments are conducted. A multidisciplinary healthcare team, in consultation with the family, determines the appropriate sex assignment, which is legally recorded as the child's biological sex. Similarly, when a young woman is diagnosed with DSD, e.g. during puberty, comprehensive evaluations are performed to understand the atypical sex development pathway. Unless she, supported by her medical team, chooses to apply for a revision, her registered sex remains her biological sex.

It is uncommon for individuals with DSD to seek a revision of their sex registration and there are limited systematic data available on this matter. DSD-specific provisions for revising sex registration have already been established through the General Register Office (GRO) and require medical evidence. Our current understanding is that the revised sex registration reflects the individual's biological sex. We have contacted the GRO and the Office for Equality and Opportunity to confirm this and to obtain specific legal documents related to this process.'

I wouldn’t trust anything AI says on this topic, given the oceans of pro trans guff in circulation online.

Ask it to argue from the EHRC's point of view contesting the points from GLP. My biggest gripe for these LLMs is that they will parrot back your viewpoint to you. Prompting is so important as LLMs cannot make value judgements, they have no nuance

Thank you Two Loons that is really interesting and good to know.

TwoLoonsAndASprout

As time goes on more and more material is AI generated. How are LLM avoiding being trained on their own guff?

Of course if you just upload one side of the argument, A LLM is going to think it will be successful as it hasn't had the rebuttals factored in. It can't think and judge the quality of the arguments in conjunction with existing case law. It also has a tendency to agree with whatever is typed into it and relies on the existing Internet, with all the useless dross on there, for training.

Its pretty useless for this sort of thing. Lots of lawyers have been getting sanctioned recently for putting up ChatGPT arguments that reference nonexistent case law.

Ask it to evaluate the odds once.all the submissions have been made.

We haven't even begun to hear the Respondents' arguments, so of course it says GLP will win.

The AI also works on pleasing the user and uses their past questions to give the answer it thinks the user wants. It cannot be unbiased (as stated above) and it certainly won't be unbiased if it doesn't know what has been argued in response.

Trans-inclusive toilet policies are lawful...
<so long as you don't call them single-sex>

Trouble is GLP wants service providers to be able to pretend that a mixed-service is single-sex. They will never win on this point.

.

Indeed. And all men can enter

Another issue for them, agree.

Of course it is.

Which means women need to be ready with the counter move, which is that should the TRAs ever succeed in securing a no-sex-based-carveouts ruling that TW actually are the same as women, we mobilise outside the no-longer-meaningful word "woman" and outside the no longer meaningful concept of "women's rights", for rights based on our sex alone.

Because we then have the argument that since sex is irrelevant to "womanhood", organising our voices to speak about what we face because of our sex, and making the practical and moral arguements for provisions that we therefore need for our sex, to ensure it is not an unfair disadvantage to our freedom and our practical ability to excercise our theoretical human rights, is entirely irrelevant to and separate from trans women's needs as women.

In short, if they ever "win", they also immediately lose because in winning the right to be women despite their male sex, they also create the concept of female sex being something entirely separate from and irrelevant to women including transwomen.

I'm probably being very stupid, but this guidance has been withdrawn - what is the case about?

Willy waving

Raising money to keep a certain ex-tax barristers in kimonos?

Essentially forcing the ehrc to change it's 'interpretation' of the SC ruling to allow TW into women's spaces.
They are fighting over the SC ruling in broad terms by focusing on the EHRC interim guidance.

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.

Isn't that exactly what has happened in the Darlington nurses case? That's not worked out too well for the Trust has it.

Fairly sure the judge won't allow a relitigation of FWS?

Hopefully this case will give the TRAs a chance to air all of their very best arguments in court so they can be assessed legally.