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

As to the outing issue.... this political movement is bloody dripping with balaclavas.

The thing is, this lobby views 'the support of parliament' as:

"Fuck women, homosexuals and everybody else, we'll destroy their rights because they're just bigoted scum and we love you most of all, no one else matters, women must submit and obey to men doing whatever the fuck they want with women and women's spaces and homosexual people must be forced to 'learn to cope' with being straight (but pretending).".

Nothing else will do, let's be honest about this. Their whole problem is forced equity of consideration with others as opposed to unconditional primacy and forced submission of all others to them.

The 'support of parliament' rationally will mean ensuring third spaces and additional services. Which is a whole lot more than excluded and harmed women got when the TRAs were controlling women's spaces and resources. It won't be enough. And gradually parliament will realise what many of us have: that the people shouting at the front of this movement are not icons of stability and this is a black hole of needs and demands that nothing will ever fill. The only thing you can do is have clear, strong boundaries.

I think a lot of people are just law-abiding and trust the state that GRC is robust.

As its getting clearer that not all men go through a process or that process isnt all that, people become less supportive.

There are an astonishing number of people who refuse to admit the problems, though, for many reasons. Thats why i say parliamentary is still supportive of TRA.

The 'support of parliament' rationally will mean ensuring third spaces and additional services.

I agree. And i think once that (the only) solution is found, the number of trans identifying men will reduce. And the TM or non binary girls and women will just be an aesthetic for some women.

I think Teresa May knew there was something wrong as the numbers of men with a GRC was a fraction of the estimated number of TIM.

But rather than asking why are they happy to not have one, she was convinced that there must be barriers to getting one. Then tried to introduce self id. But its not the certificate they want, its the access to womens and womens spaces. They could get that without a certificate.

Now the courts have said that even a certificate isnt enough, they are fuming. Because its never been about the state recognising their gender.

I think they could mostly hide behind the “you can’t know whether said man has a GRC and is therefore legally a woman” much more easily, which meant they saw access to women’s spaces as effectively on the basis self ID in practice. Hence all the recent implausible “women with short hair being challenged” propaganda pieces as they’re trying to regain that lost ground.

Including the suspiciously well timed one from Jolyon’s wife, of course.

I looked the Noahffince Download whinger. She's an FtM, who is entirely open about it. How is her using the correct toilet outing? How is it dangerous?

I wonder what the sensitive info he's redacting could be?
I still can't believe he got away with supporting the case against the EHRC protest without disclosing that he knew the identity of at least one of the "persons unknown". He's sailing so close to the wind by concealing his connection to TKDB.

There's only one way to challenge a Supreme Court ruling.

This isn't it.

Fgs. I call upon Layla Moran and the other Righteous Women to ceremonially pee in the portaloos so there is the essential woman audience.

I mean it still won't work because the real issue is that non consenting women are being permitted territory this small group of men with issues can't pee on. But it strips more layers off the onion.

I always find it amusing how the fawning women who refer to themselves as 'cis', and are effusive in their declarations of TWAW, how they are happy to pee alongside TW and remove their clothes in front of TW are roundly ignored by TW. NEWSFLASH simpering women allies - they are NOT interested in you, it is the women who don't fall for the bullshit and don't consent who they want to be in those spaces with, you are an irrelevance. Proven in spades by Dr Upton - he was only interested in the women who did not consent to sharing the changing room with him and waited outside until he had left.

TIMs: we need to be included in women's spaces

Layla Moran and Laurie Penny: please! please! we're more than happy to get naked in a space with our trans siblings

TIMs: yeah not you

Quite. I wonder when it will sink in that they are not the chosen ones.

Quite. 'I will validate you any time with my body!' is a bit of an eye opener anyway, but it is always followed with, 'but I don't want your body'.

Control, power, conquering, forcing women against their consent, knowing it's causing distress - that seems to be a crucial and craved part of the experience. Lundy Bancroft would probably have insights as to why.

It's like I always say about men and boys who steal women's knickers.

If it really was just a matter of them liking the design or the feel of the fabric, they can buy knickers discreetly on Amazon. Or there's a gap in the market for a clothes manufacturer who wants to make and sell female-style knickers designed to fit the male undercarriage.

But there seems to be little demand for that. Which leads me to think that it's transgressing boundaries that they're really interested in.

@SionnachRuadh Nailed it, its a fetish after all and all of this is ultimately about their sexual gratification which is what makes their whole movement a misogynistic men's sexual rights movement, which is also why so many men support it because even if they aren't consciously aware of the fact they deep down feel that their rights to sex and sexual gratification from women overrides women's rights. So that is what it comes down to and what the GLP are fighting for essentially the rights of men to gain sexual satisfaction from nonconsenting women.

💯

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I wish that they would just be honest and open that that is their goal.

It's absolutely farcical. Up and down the entire country, formerly sane individuals are making utter tits of themselves bewailing the plight of a few poor men who are suddenly not allowed in the women's bogs. I mean... really???

It always boils down to flashers' rights, doesn't it?

I know lots of impeccably progressive men who believe they're feminist allies, and can't understand why we don't want flashers in the ladies.

akkakk · Today 08:00
Wow, what a weak and waffly statement - grasping at straws…

I think that they may be grasping at pound notes rather than straws

ArabellaScott · Today 10:28

'Safe and kind' means calling women who object to men in women's spaces 'germs' and calling for people to 'punch them in the fucking face', if not actually punching them in the fucking face.

It is amazing how the law evolves. In the capital case of Derek Bentley the jury were asked to consider nuance in the words 'let him have it, Chris' to determine the accused's innocence or guilt.

Derek Bentley - Wikipedia

The same law system now no longer considers the words 'If you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face' as an incitement to violence.

How times change

They won’t, because the gaslighting is part of the enjoyment and the power trip.

Definitely Eresh, honesty and them are not bedfellows.