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

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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
RedToothBrush · 13/11/2025 09:14

Bangbangwhizzbang · 13/11/2025 08:36

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 And bring up cases that have been superseded by the SC judgement?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?

Cos every court day is a pay day for a barrister.

You assume they are there for moral reasons rather than because it pays the bills.

MyrtleLion · 13/11/2025 09:15

Tribunal Tweets published their reporting last night as some of you are aware.

Here is the direct link to the morning session.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tiez0X8g3QHyWm6N83TGkMb0PLHEcr2b/view

All documents available on their substack here:
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/good-law-project-and-others-vs-the

GLP - Day 1 Morning .pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tiez0X8g3QHyWm6N83TGkMb0PLHEcr2b/view

Cantunseeit · 13/11/2025 09:21

Reading the GLP barrister’s arguments took me back to the first time I saw a scolder take over a thread here. I was really interested to see the other side’s arguments as I was concerned my personal circumstances (parent of trans identifying teen) may be blinding me to other perspectives. I was flabbergasted to find that they had NOTHING. In fact I was doing a better job in balancing views in my head with residual “be kind”

My jaw was on the table last night when reading the TT notes- the sheer incoherence and desperation of the arguments - and my expectations by now were already through the floor.

Much like the arguments a small child might make when trying to avoid sharing a treat with a sibling

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 13/11/2025 09:22

Gender neutral obviously will be used by anyone who chooses, as discussed here many times - people with opposite sex kids, carers with opposite sex clients, all the women who believe in validating men by exposing their bodies, so the 'outing' bit is rubbish. As usual, the consenting women's presence and bodies won't do.They're not the ones desired.

Leaving aside the many issues with commandeering disabled toilets, they aren't 'outing' either unless being disabled is a shameful thing? Many use them who aren't wheelchair users for various reasons.

It's the usual thing of a desired solution frantically flailing around trying to find a convincing causative reason. And the issue really is that if women are permitted a space that men who identify women are not allowed to go - even if they have lots of accessible provision themselves - it means that everyone is saying those men are not 'real' women. And women are being allowed to escape and have things those men can't commandeer and own. Like Sarah in Brighton with the rape crisis service - for a single sex option to even exist was too offensive to men to permit alongside their three available options.

The boundary breaking and being not just the very clearly always most important but the ONLY group that matters is a major part of this culture. And with this absolute inability to even acknowledge the existence of women's needs and rights, never mind considering ways for win-win solutions, they don't have a hope.

The bottom line is the belief that women wanting single sex spaces is a wholly irrational, unreasonable demand. Men's feelings about this are a terribly sensitive issue - Labour are running around like headless chickens about them - women's feelings and actual exclusions and assaults, YEARS of them, pfft. They're only women. They're not really human or anything.

anyolddinosaur · 13/11/2025 09:24

Those claiming to be the opposite sex would have a better argument if they said using disabled facilities was discrimination against the disabled. As they never consider anyone's rights but their own it wont have occurred to them.

Bangbangwhizzbang · 13/11/2025 09:25

RedToothBrush · 13/11/2025 09:14

Cos every court day is a pay day for a barrister.

You assume they are there for moral reasons rather than because it pays the bills.

May be that is why they struggle with the concept of SS spaces to protect women’s dignity (as well as safety and privacy)?

miuri · 13/11/2025 09:27

DuchessofReality · 13/11/2025 09:10

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.

they’re not doing the cosplay though, which invalidates their girly feels

RedToothBrush · 13/11/2025 09:27

Bangbangwhizzbang · 13/11/2025 09:25

May be that is why they struggle with the concept of SS spaces to protect women’s dignity (as well as safety and privacy)?

There's plenty of barristers who don't care where money comes from. Women's dignity really won't be a top concern for many.

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 13/11/2025 09:28

Bangbangwhizzbang · 13/11/2025 08:36

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?

They're trying to do two things.

Force an interpretation of the SC ruling that forces a corresponding change in the guidance.

Get a declaration that the Equality Act, as now interpreted by the SC, is incompatible with the HRA.

A declaration of incompatibility doesn't force HMG to do anything, but it's a signal they could get an adverse ECtHR decision later on (which also has no enforcement mechanism - see prisoner voting rights).

So Goodwin is still relevant and I can see why Croft could be too. Disapplying the GRA to the EA has taken away a lot of what was supposed to be a solution to the problems of those cases.

Bangbangwhizzbang · 13/11/2025 09:30

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 13/11/2025 09:22

Gender neutral obviously will be used by anyone who chooses, as discussed here many times - people with opposite sex kids, carers with opposite sex clients, all the women who believe in validating men by exposing their bodies, so the 'outing' bit is rubbish. As usual, the consenting women's presence and bodies won't do.They're not the ones desired.

Leaving aside the many issues with commandeering disabled toilets, they aren't 'outing' either unless being disabled is a shameful thing? Many use them who aren't wheelchair users for various reasons.

It's the usual thing of a desired solution frantically flailing around trying to find a convincing causative reason. And the issue really is that if women are permitted a space that men who identify women are not allowed to go - even if they have lots of accessible provision themselves - it means that everyone is saying those men are not 'real' women. And women are being allowed to escape and have things those men can't commandeer and own. Like Sarah in Brighton with the rape crisis service - for a single sex option to even exist was too offensive to men to permit alongside their three available options.

The boundary breaking and being not just the very clearly always most important but the ONLY group that matters is a major part of this culture. And with this absolute inability to even acknowledge the existence of women's needs and rights, never mind considering ways for win-win solutions, they don't have a hope.

The bottom line is the belief that women wanting single sex spaces is a wholly irrational, unreasonable demand. Men's feelings about this are a terribly sensitive issue - Labour are running around like headless chickens about them - women's feelings and actual exclusions and assaults, YEARS of them, pfft. They're only women. They're not really human or anything.

As can be seen by the thousands upon thousands of girls raped by grooming gangs - and yet not enough to stop the feeling of those men being considered more important.

SixthWorstOption · 13/11/2025 09:32

WFTCHTJ · 12/11/2025 22:05

A question for those who have read the Tribunal Tweets notes from today - will the fremdschamen I get from the GLP's attempts at pleading their case be outweighed by the enjoyment at the judge slapping them down? I'm not sure I can face the levels of cringe involved.

Fremdschämen v schadenfreude! Grin

Coatsoff42 · 13/11/2025 09:36

Bangbangwhizzbang · 13/11/2025 09:30

As can be seen by the thousands upon thousands of girls raped by grooming gangs - and yet not enough to stop the feeling of those men being considered more important.

The rapes and assaults continue, it’s not a historical event.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c709ypzr8xlo

Bangbangwhizzbang · 13/11/2025 09:38

RedToothBrush · 13/11/2025 09:27

There's plenty of barristers who don't care where money comes from. Women's dignity really won't be a top concern for many.

It is not where the money comes from that is my point though. I totally agree barristers must represent the most appalling people and do the job of defending them to the best of their ability. It is the only way we can have justice. I mean the arguments they use - arguments that even a first year law student would know are false. That they must know the judge can only dismiss out of hand with incredulity that they even raised them. That they may not recognise the idea of women’s dignity needing protection because they do not understand the concept of dignity.

Bangbangwhizzbang · 13/11/2025 09:40

Coatsoff42 · 13/11/2025 09:36

The rapes and assaults continue, it’s not a historical event.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c709ypzr8xlo

Indeed. And still they try to sweep the inquiry, that they never wanted, under the rug.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 13/11/2025 09:51

And the cleaner of the opposite sex argument actually works against the GLP, as they always put a sign up to warn users that there’s someone of the opposite sex in there, so they can make the choice whether they want to use the facilities in the presence of the opposite sex. It actually underlines that everyone knows that some people do not want to, and possibly even cannot, share facilities with the opposite sex.

MyrtleLion · 13/11/2025 09:56

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 13/11/2025 09:28

They're trying to do two things.

Force an interpretation of the SC ruling that forces a corresponding change in the guidance.

Get a declaration that the Equality Act, as now interpreted by the SC, is incompatible with the HRA.

A declaration of incompatibility doesn't force HMG to do anything, but it's a signal they could get an adverse ECtHR decision later on (which also has no enforcement mechanism - see prisoner voting rights).

So Goodwin is still relevant and I can see why Croft could be too. Disapplying the GRA to the EA has taken away a lot of what was supposed to be a solution to the problems of those cases.

I agree with what they are trying to do but I disagree that Goodwin and Croft are relevant.

The Supreme Court states that Goodwin was satisfied by the GRA and is therefore dead. And the Judge in this case has already said that Crift is dead as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

Coatsoff42 · 13/11/2025 10:03

Bangbangwhizzbang · 13/11/2025 09:40

Indeed. And still they try to sweep the inquiry, that they never wanted, under the rug.

100%

Mmmnotsure · 13/11/2025 10:07

MyrtleLion · 13/11/2025 09:56

I agree with what they are trying to do but I disagree that Goodwin and Croft are relevant.

The Supreme Court states that Goodwin was satisfied by the GRA and is therefore dead. And the Judge in this case has already said that Crift is dead as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

RIP Goodwin
RIP Croft

Literal violence.

Signalbox · 13/11/2025 10:08

Bangbangwhizzbang · 13/11/2025 08:36

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?

They want to take a trans case to the ECtHR. I don’t know if that’s possible with this one but that is their ultimate goal I think.

GnomeComforts · 13/11/2025 10:14

Signalbox · 13/11/2025 10:08

They want to take a trans case to the ECtHR. I don’t know if that’s possible with this one but that is their ultimate goal I think.

A TIM ex-judge, Victoria McCloud who now lives in Ireland, is bringing a case to the ECtHR. I can't remember what his spurious grounds are. But it will take more than half a decade to grind through, even if he is given permission for it to proceed. I think that happens next year some time. (You can look it up, I'm a bit hazy.)

GLP haven't found a grift to go up to the ECHR yet, AFAIK. They need a person to bring a case. And AFAIR, that case needs to go all the way up the British system before they can go whining to the ECtHR. And then, as a PP noted, there is no legal obligation on the UK to follow the judgement.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 13/11/2025 10:14

Which would be excellent, as the ECtHR have never yet had to formally consider and rule on women's rights in all this. As has been mentioned before, the inability to get the idea of women's equality and of the HRA applying to them too, may not only end in a massive shock to activists, but may also end up affecting countries across Europe. They may end up quite unpopular.

MyrtleLion · 13/11/2025 10:17

From TT

We are back at the Royal Courts of Justice today for day 2 of GLP judicial review of EHRC interim guidance issued following the For Women Scotland Supreme Court decision.

Our coverage from yesterday here:

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/good-law-project-and-others-vs-the

Edited because I posted yesterday's first post by mistake.

Signalbox · 13/11/2025 10:18

MyrtleLion · 13/11/2025 10:17

From TT

We are back at the Royal Courts of Justice today for day 2 of GLP judicial review of EHRC interim guidance issued following the For Women Scotland Supreme Court decision.

Our coverage from yesterday here:

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/good-law-project-and-others-vs-the

Edited because I posted yesterday's first post by mistake.

Edited

I thought they’d been refused permission to live tweet?

MyrtleLion · 13/11/2025 10:20

Signalbox · 13/11/2025 10:18

I thought they’d been refused permission to live tweet?

Apologies that was yesterday's first post. I made a mistake. I have edited to post today's first post.