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
Llamasarellovely · 15/11/2025 10:48

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 15/11/2025 10:34

When they talk about trans access on a case by case basis it always makes me wonder which cases these trans activists envisage being denied access? Where exactly do they draw the line?

Because as we’ve seen they don’t even want women to be able to request a female rape examiner. They fight for the rights of rapists to be incarcerated with vulnerable women. They want access to groups for women who’ve had a miscarriage.

By case by case they really mean there being no line at all don’t they?

It's always exclusion just past the point where it would affect them.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/11/2025 10:54

SionnachRuadh · 15/11/2025 10:31

Jolyon is asking "tell me something about the little-known figure Muriel Gray"?

Doesn't he ever watch TV? Should we all send him clips from The Tube?

“Little known” by him. What a dickhead.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/11/2025 10:58

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 15/11/2025 10:34

When they talk about trans access on a case by case basis it always makes me wonder which cases these trans activists envisage being denied access? Where exactly do they draw the line?

Because as we’ve seen they don’t even want women to be able to request a female rape examiner. They fight for the rights of rapists to be incarcerated with vulnerable women. They want access to groups for women who’ve had a miscarriage.

By case by case they really mean there being no line at all don’t they?

They do. They use it as a gotcha when you say there is a conflict of rights, but any time it’s suggested using it they are outraged. As you say, look at ERCC and Survivors Network in Brighton.

Merrymouse · 15/11/2025 10:59

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 15/11/2025 10:42

'Confusing' being a very polite way to put it!

Are the government being incredibly and openly dishonest? And did the PM just lie in the HoC?

Or do they have no internal consistency or grip and are randomly briefing against each other?

Why are they - as the Legal Feminst says - trying to argue lines that were considered and dismissed by the SC? Why and how are they blocking out the whole pathway to the SCJ? The GRA was the case by case, law wangled, some men sometimes will be ok experiment that was destruction tested on women, and ended in the SCJ.

Do they have no one up there who can read or understand these cases? Are their legal department all on holiday somewhere with the missing legal advisors of Darlington? Are they identifying as all this being ok and nobody noticing?

Why are their advisors not pointing out to them that the general public are watching this and increasingly wondering if they're fit to run a stall at the Christmas fete never mind the country?

Edited

Or do they have no internal consistency or grip and are randomly briefing against each other?

Well...

Merrymouse · 15/11/2025 11:09

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/11/2025 10:54

“Little known” by him. What a dickhead.

Show quote history

Is the 'little know' supposed to be ironic or serious?

I think he grew up in New Zealand, so missed out on UK culture in the 80's.

(I would suggest that this explains some of his sexist attitudes, but Boy George and Billy Bragg ruin that theory).

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/11/2025 11:09

WallaceinAnderland · 14/11/2025 16:49

Case by case basis is what we already have in society now. It's just that the service providers are failing to conform to the law.

The bottom line is that if it is a single sex provision, no members of the opposite sex can be admitted. If members of the opposite sex are permitted, then it cannot be a single sex provision.

It just needs service providers to stick to the law or be sued - as in the Darlington case. And with clarity from the SC, the EHRC, the judgement in the GLP case and the government, it will be a slam dunk and no one will want to be taken to court over failing to provide SSS.

There can be no other outcome. The judge is not going to agree with the GLP that some men are women, even though there is no way to define at what point they become women and that admitting those men would not be discriminatory to other men. There is no way the GLP are going to get a ruling in their favour because what they are asking for has no legal standing, is discriminatory and does not even make sense.

I think though that they are trying to get round it by saying that mixed sex “single gender” spaces pretending to be single sex aren’t actually illegal.

GnomeComforts · 15/11/2025 11:23

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 15/11/2025 10:42

'Confusing' being a very polite way to put it!

Are the government being incredibly and openly dishonest? And did the PM just lie in the HoC?

Or do they have no internal consistency or grip and are randomly briefing against each other?

Why are they - as the Legal Feminst says - trying to argue lines that were considered and dismissed by the SC? Why and how are they blocking out the whole pathway to the SCJ? The GRA was the case by case, law wangled, some men sometimes will be ok experiment that was destruction tested on women, and ended in the SCJ.

Do they have no one up there who can read or understand these cases? Are their legal department all on holiday somewhere with the missing legal advisors of Darlington? Are they identifying as all this being ok and nobody noticing?

Why are their advisors not pointing out to them that the general public are watching this and increasingly wondering if they're fit to run a stall at the Christmas fete never mind the country?

Edited

Why are their advisors not pointing out to them that the general public are watching this and increasingly wondering if they're fit to run a stall at the Christmas fete never mind the country?

TBH I don't think the general public are watching this. It's a fairly obscure legal objection to a small piece of "guidance" that no longer exists, and will soon (hopefully!) be superceded by the real thing.

It's just us lot and the TRAs who are paying attention 😆

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 15/11/2025 13:36

It has gone into two national papers this weekend; journalists are making sure people notice.

Keeptoiletssafe · 15/11/2025 15:25

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/11/2025 11:09

I think though that they are trying to get round it by saying that mixed sex “single gender” spaces pretending to be single sex aren’t actually illegal.

Edited
Show quote history

However, that’s somewhat irrelevant since the Supreme Court verdict with regards to toilets. As the building regulations and H&S legislation has a different design for mixed sex, they have to 1. change all single sex toilets to a mixed sex design or 2. change the legislation and building regs and probably some parts of the Sexual Offences Act. Or 3. keep single sex toilets as single sex toilets.

These choices will be dawning on civil servants now, it just needs ministers to be aware.

ArabellaScott · 15/11/2025 15:33

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 15/11/2025 10:34

When they talk about trans access on a case by case basis it always makes me wonder which cases these trans activists envisage being denied access? Where exactly do they draw the line?

Because as we’ve seen they don’t even want women to be able to request a female rape examiner. They fight for the rights of rapists to be incarcerated with vulnerable women. They want access to groups for women who’ve had a miscarriage.

By case by case they really mean there being no line at all don’t they?

I expect it's a case of 'rapist gender', but only after the fact, because one couldn't possibly make any assumptions about males in women's services/spaces. So, only if and when a bloke attacks a woman, would he be forbidden, retrospectively, from accessing the space.

ArabellaScott · 15/11/2025 15:34

It'd require a bit of time travel to make that effective exclusion. 'Now we know that Isla is rapist gender, we will take steps to ensure that he isn't allowed to attend the spray tan session with young women at college that he attended some months back'.

WallaceinAnderland · 15/11/2025 17:02

I think though that they are trying to get round it by saying that mixed sex “single gender” spaces pretending to be single sex aren’t actually illegal.

Mixed sex spaces pretending to be single sex are illegal. They just need to get the signage right and appropriate to the facility.

In the workplace, single sex facilities must be provided if needed as part of the working environment (such as the need to change clothes). They can't 'get around' the law by claiming that gender and sex mean the same thing.

SionnachRuadh · 15/11/2025 17:37

ArabellaScott · 15/11/2025 15:34

It'd require a bit of time travel to make that effective exclusion. 'Now we know that Isla is rapist gender, we will take steps to ensure that he isn't allowed to attend the spray tan session with young women at college that he attended some months back'.

Yes, it's the approach recommended by Peter Tatchell, though I have no information on whether Peter is a Time Lord.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 15/11/2025 17:39

ArabellaScott · 15/11/2025 15:34

It'd require a bit of time travel to make that effective exclusion. 'Now we know that Isla is rapist gender, we will take steps to ensure that he isn't allowed to attend the spray tan session with young women at college that he attended some months back'.

Yes, and one has to assume that Isla will be out of prison at some point. Is it then OK for him to attend spray tan sessions? Will the people running the course know who he is? (Or more likely, will the gym that allows people to use the changing room of their choice know who has been convicted of a sex offence?)

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/11/2025 17:43

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 15/11/2025 17:39

Yes, and one has to assume that Isla will be out of prison at some point. Is it then OK for him to attend spray tan sessions? Will the people running the course know who he is? (Or more likely, will the gym that allows people to use the changing room of their choice know who has been convicted of a sex offence?)

Show quote history

Absolutely and it’s what these policy makers and lawyers really need to get to grips with. Allowing “trans women” in means allowing Isla in.

ArabellaScott · 15/11/2025 17:53

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 15/11/2025 17:39

Yes, and one has to assume that Isla will be out of prison at some point. Is it then OK for him to attend spray tan sessions? Will the people running the course know who he is? (Or more likely, will the gym that allows people to use the changing room of their choice know who has been convicted of a sex offence?)

Show quote history

Good point. Is it possible to detransition from rapist gender?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/11/2025 17:57

No, because once a man rapes, he’ll always be a rapist.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/11/2025 17:58

I know you know, just wanted to spell it out.

ArabellaScott · 15/11/2025 17:59

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/11/2025 17:58

I know you know, just wanted to spell it out.

I know that, but what is more important, is whether the UK/Scottish governments know that, or whether they will decide it on a 'case by case' basis?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/11/2025 18:00

I fear the answer tbh.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/11/2025 18:00

I think it’s along the lines of “plausible deniability”

ArabellaScott · 15/11/2025 18:03

Yes, I expect it depends on whether there are photos in the newspapers, or not.

MistyGreenAndBlue · 15/11/2025 21:52

teawamutu · 13/11/2025 10:41

Yes, I did wonder about that. And obvs not had the other side yet. Chat GPT wasn't much of a surprise - Grok was though, I thought the aim was to iron all the bias out.

Show quote history

I thought Grok relies on AI so any bias AI has will be translated through.

Better than WIKI but hardly infallible

Bangbangwhizzbang · 15/11/2025 22:56

MistyGreenAndBlue · 15/11/2025 21:52

I thought Grok relies on AI so any bias AI has will be translated through.

Better than WIKI but hardly infallible

Show quote history

Grok IS AI. And all AI reflects the bias of the material it is trained on or accesses. It can’t do otherwise as despite the name it is not intelligent and has no capacity to assess what it is told.