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 Tandora the fox Botherer?, if not just a man, pretending to be a woman in IMHO

No female would be this persistent.

Half a million quids worth of people have signed up for GLPs legal performance.

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

Because anyone can walk into a toilet? The judgement hasn’t changed that I’m afraid , it’s just made life a lot more scary for trans people.

I certainly believe Jolyon's confident statement that some Scottish judge will give him a bad court thingy, and then the chaps will all be free to use women's facilities again.

I think it will be his last big hurrah. He got that money on the back of the For Women Scotland judgement, now he has to try and show he can actually do something with it.

That's what his weird, lying Bluesky post was about - keeping the grift going, stopping the questions from being asked. But even some TIMs on Reddit are beginning to see through it.

I think they're mostly scared that they will go into the gents and nobody will say "Ladies is over there, mate"

The trade off is that it has made life less scary for women.

What a nasty and petty thing to say.

No it hasn’t.

As a woman the politics of it personally terrifies me although it is of no practical personal consequence whatsoever.

I think the thing that is rather baffling is your concept of ‘pretending to be trans’.

You have identified a kind of man who you don’t want to share women’s services - people who you call ‘cis’ men - and seem to think that your your understanding of their gender is more important than their own.

Yes it has. Because now if there is some scary bloke in the toilets, we know we have the law on our side if we ask to have them thrown out.

It also means schools and other organisations with safeguarding responsibilities towards our children have to comply with the fucking law.

I have no idea what you are on about

Trans isn't even a thing you can pretend to be.

There is no actual definition of trans beyond "person who says they identify as a member of the opposite sex". There's no purity test.

Any man who decides he's going to be a woman for the next five minutes is just as trans as Jazz Jennings.

I’m sure you feel safe from the boogy man 🙄 but the reality is that it will have zero impact in reducing violence against women and girls. If this nonsense continues the likely result is quite the opposite.

please educate yourself on what being trans is. It’s really important that you do.

The judgement is wide reaching and also applies to discrimination law, the ability to have lesbian associations etc.

If you think toilets should be mixed sex or unisex, you should definitely make that argument.

However, from what you have written, it is important to you to keep some men out of women’s toilets. It’s just not clear how you would like to do this legally.

That sounds a bit like our charming visitors who say things like "you know how this ends"

Everyso often I come back to this thread to see what solutions Tandora can come up with for keeping public toilets safe for everyone.

I know the safest are toilets with door gaps.

Which means single sex toilets.

I am very willing to listen and have a discussion.

However, Tandora is never going to enter that discussion and look at my 15.00 post to show why Tandorra’s latest post is wrong.

Tandora

I value services for women and would like these to remain. These services have historically included trans women (as they should). The recent EHRC guidance is trying to impose arbitrary, unreasonable and untenable rules that will change this.

You have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of the EHRC guidance. It summarises the Supreme Court judgment for organisations, in order that they may comply with the law.

The law is the law, the EHRC aren't changing it, or imposing anything.

I have educated myself.

A trans person is any person who says they are the opposite sex to the one they actually are, for whatever reason.

Stop trying to gatekeep people's trans identities.

but then again you people will argue anything as long as you believe it supports your agenda.

So now, after a few posts with helpful links, I'm 'you people', am I?

I'm not 'you people', I'm someone who likes to use primary sources and stick to the facts, and I posted some useful sites referring to the regulations around toilet provision which you might find informative.

I don't know why you think it's OK to call me 'you people', Tandora.

I am not going to interract with the tedious Transdora any more, who definitely isn't a man.

What I am interested in, is that on the fox killer's lying post on Bluesky, some followers are actually daring to doubt him. To push back.

After the FWS Supreme Court ruling, and with the changing patience of society, I do wonder if his grift is mainly over. Stonewall are losing corporate money. A PP noted that a trans activist group is finding it hard to raise their usual backing.

Times are moving on. Time to go back to tax law, Jolyon!

By "this nonsense" you mean female people being allowed to exist in law and have single sex spaces, yeah?

Also, on the Reddit thread, some people are hiliarously misinformed. One of them thinks that Parliament will be voting on the EHRC guidance 😆

Lol.