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

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

“Little known” by him. What a dickhead.

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.

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

Well...

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).

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.

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 be superceded by the real thing.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 😆

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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

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?)

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.

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

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

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?

I fear the answer tbh.

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

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

Michael

https://knowingius.org/p/what-is-a-womens-service-a-reply

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

Better than WIKI but hardly infallible

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.