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/

That PP makes no sense.

Noone has the right to privacy regarding protected characteristics which are objectively observable by others.

Age, Sex, Race - not usually too difficult to spot and impossible to ignore.
Disability - eg we can see the wheelchair and infer disability while any details of causes or medical conditions are private. Invisible disabilities obvs different.
Pregnancy - initially a private medical matter but eventually visible to all
Sexual Orientation - entirely private unless someone decides to disclose verbally or through stereotypical presentation/signalling.
Gender Reassignment - not necessarily observable in itself but sex usually is observable and it is the incongruous gender presentation which attracts attention to the transness; details of treatments or surgeries remain private.

You can't stop people seeing and pattern matching - it is what brains evolved to do. Is that brown thing on the ground a stick or a snake? You "know" before you have conciously thought of it. Brains don't pay much attention to ordinary things - they lock on to difference and incongruity. Try not staring at a the soundless TV in the corner of the bar. So for the human brain, most trans people are like flashing beacons grabbing attention and we can't help it. In the vast vast majority of cases humans can identify what sex someone is without being told. How can that information be considered private?

I have found the suggestion that workplaces cannot monitor and address single sex space usage to be strange. Of course if can be done.

They considered everything. The judgment was 80 pages long.

The ruling related to the nature and determination of what 'Sex' meant in the Equalities Act. 'Sex' and 'Sexual Orientation' are protected characteristics, as is 'Gender Re-assignment'. The act cannot work as it was intended to do if 'Gender Identity' is used as a substitute for 'Sex'.

Women and girls also have rights and these rights and protections have been wilfully breached.

I think it might help you to read about the process:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

Note in particular: "We aim to provide the updated Code of Practice to the UK government by summer, for ministerial approval ahead of the full" draft Code being laid in Parliament after the summer recess."

Can people stop schooling me about law and guidance?

The draft guidance becomes statutory after consultation, review and approval by parliament. Statutory guidance clarifies how to comply with law and institutions are obliged to comply with it.

Yes it would be much more offensive if people said it to trans people. Because being trans is a fundamental characteristic of a person. Whereas having a shitty opinion is all on you ('you' in the general sense please)

Are you serious?

How many times have you seen this needed to be enforced?
How many men* do you know that choose to use the women's toilets?

**To be clear when I use this term it is not intended to include trans women.
I know, however, that when you use this word you refuse to distinguish between trans women and men.
To be clear I am referring to a group of people who are men and that does not include trans women. This group of people does not need policing to stop their access to women's toilets, they simply need to be told those toilets are designated for women and they will not customarily use them.

I would like to be able to describe this group in language but you people make it very difficult because whatever words I use you pretend not to know what they mean.
So please tell me what (non offensive) words I need to use to refer to a group of men that is differentiated from transwomen to communicate with you? Thanks.

trans people are a minority.
There you are again - erasing their existence.

I am just catching up with the middle of this thread. This post is highlights the misogyny at the heart of the extreme trangender activist’s arguments and tactics.

”They are not going to get over it because their fundamental being is at stake. To the contrary you will have to get over this because sharing some spaces with a few trans women hardly affects your life at all.”

So… male people’s access to female single sex spaces are fundamental. Yet female people’s needs for those spaces to remain single sex are completely dimissed and minimised. The juxtaposition is a catastrophising tactic giving all the emotional moral support to the male people in this argument. Comparatively there is none for the female people.

It obfuscates that this is an additional privilege for the male people. That group of male people already have legitimate access to male toilets and many of them have used male toilets in the past.

And that this is all because of a philosophical belief that those male people have that is not reflected in material reality.

And it is followed up by this threat which is not new but I see it has joined the ‘6ft bearded transman’ threat in popularity of use.

“If you don’t get over it the result will be fewer services for women, which will affect your life somewhat, although not as much as the current proposals will affect trans people.”

Notice the coercive threat is also deployed with a catastrophising emotionally manipulative plea at the end.

It all amounts to ‘women and girls, it is for your own good to allow those male people who demand access to your spaces in.’

Once you see it, you cannot miss it again.

Exactly this. Jolyon, Tandora etc al seem to think that the judgment should have considered trans-identified people's feelings when ruling on whether a word meant what it actually means, or what Stonewall and co would like it to mean (and have made a fortune persuading other people that that's what it means).

Quite apart from the fact that the trans angle was put by the Scottish fucking government, so hardly neglected - judges don't decide whether the law might make some men sad oh dear better change it then. They rule on what it actually means.

Tandora may identify as a better legal mind than a Supreme Court judge, but until the legal career has progressed to a point where that can be proved, I'm sticking with the real ones thanks.

Considering the judgment is only just over a month old, none yet. Watch this space.

Exactly. Workplaces are where it is easiest.

The true radicalisation has been gender ideology and the behaviours of all those that have slavishly adhered to it. It has pulled in lots of children and young people and led many of them on to a path of medical and surgical 'treatments' which actively disrupt and go against the body's natural, healthy state...in pursut of something that is not possible.

Furthermore it has encouraged cross dressing men to centre themselves at the expense of their wives and families, and has emboldened them to believe that they are actually women; trampling on the integrity and dignity of female people and suggesting that women and girls have no inherent rights or protections of their own. Rights in which male people are not centred.

This whole sub forum has long been the voice of dissent against this radical agenda. I know you are finding it difficult to accept that what you believe to be true is not true, nor does it have any validity in law. That is what happens when we have unrealistic expectations and entertain illusions. We come down to earth with a crash. Eventuality we realise that life has limits and that we cannot have or do everything thing we want to do. That other people and other groups also have needs. Nobody is stopping from you from imagining anything, but you have to be aware that 'sex change' is not reallly possible.

The most well adapted accommodate their desires within the bounds of reality. We cannot force the world to believe we are something we are plainly not.'Sex' is one of the central features of life on earth, and is thus recognised the world over. Best to make some sort of peace with it.

As I was entering my workplace's unisex toilets space I met a man leaving. He looked uncomfortable when he met me. I see this quite a lot. I don't think men feel comfortable in these unisex spaces either. Even though they are unisex there is a space where all the doors of the unisex toilets open onto.

I swim in a local pool with large unisex changing (interestingly the toilets are single sex) and I have encountered men there who also look uncomfortable.

They’re not going to be able to change the impact of the ruling. The guidance is based on that. TWAM.

The ruling can't be changed, but the guidance elaborates and interprets the ruling. The Guidance is in draft and can be changed.

As for the ruling - well it's time for an amendment to the EA.

And because setting out and enforcing these expectations is easy for employers, it’s arguably reasonable for the female staff to expect an organisation to do so.

Best get lobbying then.

I was about to say the same.

"So I predict in the short term there will be less stuff/fewer spaces & services for women. Then over time there will be extra small third unisex spaces added and more women only stuff will return. It won’t happen overnight because this all took 15 years or more to creep in."

I suspect that you are correct here Knotty. I think that one benefit to all the discussion about toilets is that women are now more aware of what was happening and being vocal about their needs has meant that those designing facilities now understand that converting all toileting facilities into gender neutral was not something widely embraced.

It will take time, as you say. But the balance will come.

I know plenty of men and boys who don't want only gender neutral toilets too. It isn't just women and girls complaining.

Quite.

I am looking forward to hearing the considered arguments for removing the rights of women, homosexuals and disabled people.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway, back to Jolyon:

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/2025.06.18-204609/www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/uk-supreme-court-trans-overturn-pointless-xnbt8nmzr" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Trans people ‘fed false hope’ that gender ruling can be axed

There's a link in there, to an archived article from the Scottish Times, so it's not behind a paywall.

ETA: Just trying to fix the link

https://archive.is/n2PpM

This is what I've been saying - he's on a massive grift with not much to show for it, so he has to keep coming up with nonsense "wins" which are nothing of the sort.

That's the last £500,000 he'll raise, I reckon. People will get wise to him and his ridiculous tilting at windmills.

It is actually inconceivable that lobby groups think that the guidance can be based on anything but the law.

I'm not sure whether this is deliberate?

Let me explain again.

This conversation started by me expressing the viewpoint that if the Guidance is approved in its current form, the result will be fewer facilities provided/ designated specifically for women.

I expressed my view that this was unfortunate since I don't personally enjoy sharing facilities with cis men.

This then went in two directions:

1. what do you mean by cis bla bla bla. The usual.

2. How are you going to enforce exclusion of cis men from toilets.

Regarding number 2 I replied that that it is entirely unnecessary to enforce this since such men do not customarily chose to use facilities designated for women. It's a non issue.

Of course there are ways for employers to discipline people for persistently using certain facilities they have been barred from using. The people who will suffer the consequences of this are trans and gender non-conforming people. It won't affect gender conforming non trans women and men.

The reason I said that this won't be implemented is not because it's not possible, it won't be implemented because it will have a completely unreasonable and disproportionate burden on trans and GNC people. In the real world other than a few ragingly transphobic people - people will be uncomfortable enforcing this. They may not know who is trans and who isn't, and have to go down the road of having to start guessing - e.g. say the receptionist at a sports centre. What proof are they going to ask people to provide? There will be upset, law suits; concerns about how to implement enforcement in a non discriminatory way, that won't violate other aspects of the law. To make life easier for themselves, employers and others will choose the easy way (only reasonable way) out - provision of unisex services.

Meanwhile there will be and is no way and never has been any way to enforce entry to public toilets in general on an everyday basis other than through intrusive and arbitrary means. How are we going to do so? Barriers that scan your chromosomes? Everyone is carry around a BC and show it to a guard on the door? Mandatory genital inspections? Some people suggested "with their eyes" and confronting people they don't look right. If you think that's going to end well I can't help you.

In sum, trans women don't pretend to be trans to access women and girls toilets.
They are trans, they can't help it and they want to get on with their day.

Men don't pretend to be women to access women and girls toilets. If they want to go into the toilet to rape someone (which is extremely rare, since most VAWG is committed in private settings by people known to the victim) they are free to do so as they please as there is no barred entry to toilets.

Provision of unisex facilities increases harassment of women, so it is unfortunate that this is a likely consequence of this guidance.

There is zero evidence that provision of men's and women's designated services, without enforcing the barring of trans people from using the facilities of their choice (I won't say gender because I know it triggers you all), has any relationship whatsoever to increased levels of VAWG. A few anecdotal cases on the internet of women being assaulted by trans women in facilities is not evidence.

**please substitute for whatever words you prefer. Thanks.