Good Law Project's latest claim - fact check?

[teawamutu]

I'm sure there must be some arrant bollocks in here somewhere, because Jolyon.

But is there anything worrying in this?

goodlawproject.org/ehrc-backs-down-on-single-sex-toilets/

is this a slam dunk show stopper argument meant to prove that the sex exemptions should be ignored?

No , it’s just one example how woefully poorly contemplated and written the guidance is

If there were any doubt about the meaning the EHRC would have changed it.

It’s not clear why you find it difficult to understand.

Interim update, not guidance🙄

It doesn't really matter how well or badly the guidance is written, because your actual problem with it is that it follows the Supreme Court judgment, which you disagree with.

Please share the other examples.

For anyone who hasn't had the energy to read through all wailing and flailing about men being expected to respect the legal rights of women and girls to undress without dodgy men present, this is the response the EHRC sent to the JM's fundraiser. Well worth a read and seems very clear to this non lawyer:

https://goodlawproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/2025.06.13-REDACTED-Response-to-Letter-of-Claim-1.pdf

And I still don’t understand how you intend to prevent ‘cis’ men from using women’s services if they aren’t segregated by sex.

On what basis does your understanding of somebody else’s gender carry any weight?

I read it. It certainly doesn't say what Jolyon says it says.

But grifters gonna grift...

Well presumably they will make changes/ redraft after the closure of the consultation..

It’s not clear to you, why I might think the statement

"in workplaces, it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets,"

Might lend itself to an interpretation that the guidance was asserting it to be compulsory for workplaces to provide single sex toilet?

Ok 😂😂.

I put it to you, that it’s not clear why you are insistent on pretending this reading isn’t entirely logical and reasonable.

@Tandora confirmed that she would do absolutely nothing to prevent a "cis man" from using women's spaces.

By putting a sign on the door that says they are facilities for women. As is done now and for decades.

I disagree. I think it’s a gross over-interpretation of the judgement- although the judgement was also poor in itself.

Prior to the Supreme Court judgment, the only thing they had to do to get round your silly sign is say they identify as a woman.

Now, saying they are a woman doesn't give them an all access pass to women's single sex spaces.

On what grounds do you disagree with the judgment?

Do you think you understand the law better than the country's most senior lawyers?

I think your copy and paste got stuck on one little bit of a sentence. Here is the rest, to help you out:

In workplaces, it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets, as well as sufficient single-sex changing and washing facilities where these facilities are needed.

It is not compulsory for services that are open to the public to be provided on a single-sex basis or tohave single-sex facilities such as toilets. These can be single-sex if it is a proportionate means ofachieving a legitimate aim and they meet other conditions in the Act. However, it could be indirect sexdiscrimination against women if the only provision is mixed-sex.

In workplaces and services that are open to the public:

• trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and transmen (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex

• in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities

• however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use

• where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided

• where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men

ermm another would be the bit where they tell lesbian and gay people who they can invite to the pub!

Pretty much the whole thing tbh. It’s ridiculous. Hardly surprising since it was published just days after the complex 80 page judgement. In itself that evidence of how woefully irresponsible the EHRC are and not a body to be taken remotely seriously.

Please provide the other examples of "woefully poor".

Thanks

Yes we have covered this. The rest does not help.

You need to quote the actual words, not your precis.

Well, it doesn't help you.

@Tandora did you read my post at 15.00?

No one has ever needed to say that they identified as a woman to access the women’s toilet- they can simply walk in. 🤦🏼‍♀️

It’s actually nutty bongo that you people think that trans women are pretending to be trans just so they can access women’s toilets.

It’s also astonishing that you claim this isn’t transphobia. It’s so phobic it’s positively paranoia.

They can walk in, sure. The difference is that in a sane world women know that they aren't supposed to be there, can remove themselves from the situation, and in many cases ask a staff member to have them chucked out. In TRA loony land, any woman who objects is a bigot.

I don't care why trans women are in women's spaces. I don't care whether they genuinely believe they are women or whether they are an actual pervert. None of them should be there.

He understands that he should use the facility where he feels most comfortable and decides that today it would be comfortable to identify as a woman.

On what grounds are you asking him to leave?

Yes that's exactly why clarification was sought from the supreme court.

The "pretending" argument is irrelevant. Transwomen are not female.