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/

Well no, since I have no parliamentary or legal power, it doesn’t matter what I think:

However , it is my interpretation , that the judgement has been grossly over interpreted and misrepresented by the public, the media and the EHRC.

I have some hope that this will be resolved by those who do have the relevant legal capacity to act.

I also think if it isn’t resolved in the immediate term it will create a completely unsustainable mess that ultimately will be resolved one way or other., whether through unisex almost everything or new legislation.

@Tandora do you have an opinion on the Good Law Project and how they are using the huge sum of cash donated to overturn the SC judgment?
It's the purpose of this thread after all, do you think it's ok for Jolyon Maugham to mislead his donors and block anyone who points this out?

Your interpretation makes no sense in the light of the judgement as a whole, which examined the intersection of the EA with other law (including law appertaining to maternity) and concluded that unless sex was understood to be biological sex, the EA itself and other law would be rendered nonsensical or unworkable.

It was a mess, and has now been resolved.

I understand the logic, but I actually think the judgement is more flexible than that.
the judgement allows that trans people can sometimes be treated differently from other members of their birth sex for the purposes of interpreting protections related to sex. So I don’t see why an argument couldn’t be made that it was ok to exclude men but that that didn’t necessarily have to imply exclusion of trans women.

Furthermore services can be designated for men and women without being necessarily enforced.

How has he misled his donors? I think the good law project is wonderful.

From where you are standing perhaps: unfortunately for others it has created a giant mess which is just beginning.

@Tandora it is an absolute fact that throughout recorded history, and across many cultures there has always been males ( and less commonly females) who do not wish to conform to the stereotypes, and even the law in their own society. about how a male or a female should look, what they ought to wear, or what their profession or occupation ought to be.

It was a fundamental tenet, of feminism that we should not be constrained by our sex, and nor should men.

So fast forward. We still have people of both biological sexes (more so young women now) who do not accept the idea that their bodies represent who they are or want to be.

the reasons for these people now called trans have these beliefs and thinkings about themselves is varied and complex.

Amongst that are some men who have obsessions or paraphilia which means they have developed a sexually motivated behaviour pattern, that involves female clothing, trying to look female, (whatever that means) and going in to women's spaces for sexual gratification.

that is what bothers us. Because it is not possible to know a male bodied persons motivations.

As the law now and always said women have spaces from male bodied people who may or may not be a risk.

What mess? Men are men. Women are women.

Feelings about what you may be do not change that. Just as my feelings about being a supermodel do not get me on the cover of Vogue.

Didn't you read the posts before yours at the start of this thread?
The EHRC hasn't changed anything in their guidance, they've just used slightly different words to try to explain it to him. He then spun this as a win to his followers and blocked anyone who questioned him.

I don’t think this can just be explained through the frame of stereotypes and social roles - it’s something much more visceral.

Yes I contributed to that discussion which is exactly how and why I joined this thread. I disagree with pps that the change of words isn’t meaningful and significant - the reasoning I set out is up thread

You can put your mind at rest then because it hasn't at all been misinterpreted.

We've had years of people here with this argument, that single sex exemptions were actually identity based as a result of the gender reassignment PC.

We all know that trans organisations and their supporters took away that belief at the time the EQ2010 was enacted because that's what they wanted to believe. At the same time though the drafters of the law didn't structure it in the way trans organisations believed they had. They wrote the law to mean what the supreme court has said now, finally.

Their (the trans organisations) undue influence in former incarnations of the EHRC, which is well documented, including all their awful attacks on the current chair, led to guidance that presented the exemptions as never enforceable.

This was an obvious absurdity. Many people have come here before you arguing over and over that women should not ever have single sex services in any form as a result of this atrocious misrepresentation. So we know what misrepresentation looks like and we know how utterly committed to it trans rights activists are.

So women here have paid for these cases, paid to get this to the supreme court, backed this every inch of the way and listened to countless versions of what about the men, just as you are doing again today.

We know it's right, we know you are wrong.
I guess people are engaging with you to see if you can be reached, but it's futile because you are fully committed to your beliefs.

A lot of posters do use the metaphor of religion because it does seem like that, your articles of faith, the transubstantiation, your special words and mantras so we know how hard it is to accept non believers.

JoMo is exploiting this, he's a true believer too.

But the law is right. The guidance will be written and published, business are already correcting their policies, men are already being offered alternatives to using female only space and service.

Women have been waiting for this.

It isn't going to reverse.

Your catastrophising is groundless.

Fair enough, if you think he's making a difference then you should keep sending him cash.
The rent on his Covent Garden office won't pay itself.

Plus now his pet "journalists".

nothing I have said has anything to do with “what about men”, nor am I trying to erode single sex spaces.

Im not religious, I don’t have faith.

I do believe the judgement has been over interpreted- That it was intended to allow the restriction of women’s services by birth sex, where proportionate , not to mandate that restriction such that trans women must always be prohibited from sharing women’s services or from associating with lesbians!

i believe the guidance in its current form, if it passes parliament, will result in fewer facilities designated for women, as well has having a devastating impact on trans and gender non conforming people. Both of which deeply concern me.

Not sure why you are chastising him for having money when JKR is the great GC billionaire hero?

Looking at GLP's success rate, is it worth asking Tandora to define their meaning of 'wonderful'?

Or is it like 'woman', 'trans' and an the other words we've got the wrong definition of but can't be told why?

JKR made several huge fortunes through her talent and is giving it to help women campaign.

Jolyon made money for himself, and is now asking other people for money for campaigns that cannot succeed.

I'm sure even you can see a difference.

Which she spends. Jolyon grifts for and spends other people's money.

Well because she is advancing the protection of women’s rights, whereas JM is just lining his own pockets on a hiding to nothing.

you are a fool if you believe him.

But you are happy about the protections guaranteed for transmen due to the SC ruling? Protections that the SG were happy to see them lose ? Rights that can only be protected by the interpretation that sex in the EA 2010 means biological sex?

That’s really not how I see JKR’s use of money. I don’t think she will go down well in history.

meanwhile the good law project are running vital campaigns.

She earned her money purely through her talent for writing books that children wanted to read.
He became rich by defending tax avoidance, now he's lying to vulnerable people to fund his lawfare hobbyhorse.

I don’t believe that trans men feel remotely “protected” by the SC ruling .