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/

There is every threat. If females can not be identified as a distinct sex class then it would be open season to discriminate against us.

All it means to be trans is that you are one sex but you believe you should be treated as though you are the other.

Either way, it doesn't matter what it means to be trans, because women's rights should never be conditional on what it means to be trans. Women's rights are based on what it means to be a woman.

Organisation already have legal responsibility to provide an appropriate number of facilties. They also require public liability insurance in order to operate. They cannot reduce the number of facilities. They have to be compliant.

It is not about 'acceptance'.....it is about the reality of sex and about established protections that are predicated on Sex.

Everyone already "accepts" that people can experiment with their presentation and have changing images of themselves. But that is a private matter.

I'm not sure that there'll ever be much greater acceptance of trans people while their current obsession of demanding to share changing rooms, showers and toilets with women and girls undressing continues?
If they could stop trying to compel women to accept the presence of men while undressing, society generally might be a bit more relaxed about some of the other prominent aspects of their public behaviour - like the piss and topless protests for example
But while their obsession is about forcing women and girls to accept that they may have no boundaries and must undress alongside random unknown males, given heightened awareness of sexual VAWG, people trying to remove the safety of single sex spaces are always going to appear to be on the dodgy side of history.

You are very wrong.

If the Scottish government had won the Supreme Court case, there would be absolutely no legal concept of "female person". Because "woman" would be a mixed sex category and there would be no word for members of the childbearing sex and no rights attached to it.

You do... please, tell me you do... you do actually realise that toilets are already gender-neutral if they're divided by sex?

Male people of all, any or no genders and female people of all, any or no genders.

It would be absolutely hilarious if you hadn't grasped that before coming to tell everyone off. Can you confirm?

Unless you're one of those transphobes that thinks sex and gender are the same thing? Do you?

Nobody stops existing just because they have to use an appropriate facility designated for them.

If 'trans existence' is totally dependent on everyone sharing that belief then it is a very fragile and inherently unviable existence.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment exists in the Equality Act. Nobody is campaigning to remove it.

The Good Law Project are currently campaigning to remove the PC of sex.

As explained by the SC, if the category ‘woman’ includes men, it is mixed sex and the category is not coherent in law.

You have said that you wouldn’t want to share toilets with a ‘cis’ man, but that you don’t want unisex provision. On what grounds would you exclude the ‘cis’ man?

Would your opinion of him change if he announced that he wasn’t ‘cis’?

Really offensive to trans people to claim that they literally won't exist because of people thinking things.

But I'm sure that poster knows that.

The Good Law Project are currently campaigning to remove the PC of sex.

Louder, for those at the back.

They are not campaigning for trans rights.

They are campaigning to erase female people in law.

They are campaigning for trans people to have multiple protected categories and female people to have none.

Great post.
The GLP pretend to think that by clarifying a statement they are changing it.

It’s my prediction that there will be fewer women’s spaces as a result of a general rule mandating restriction of single sex spaces by “birth sex”. Employers and others will move to a gender neutral model to avoid inevitable resulting difficulties and there will be fewer services for women.

Only if an employer is willing to spend the extra money needed in rent or buy the floor space to have multiple single units plus pay for the extra long term upkeep. Extra staff space is an expensive overhead which adds nothing to the bottom line is designed out of modern offices. The number of large employers who want to use hot desks and WFH prove that smaller office space is a financial driver in decision making. Communal toilets and changing rooms in work spaces were designed to be single sex to cheap floor space.

However post SC ruling women are going from having no single sex service provision to some single sex services so that is an improvement.

this is the fault of the people advocating for such an unreasonable and untenable rule because of their obsession with and hatred of trans people.

Bla bla bla its a shame that the law has always been based on the employer making workspaces safe for employees not some imaginary hatred. That no fault can be with the men who insisted that they had a right to use the provisions that were put in place to support women.... oops ... lets look...

Yep the SC case was about having women represented in State business not creating a discrimination against men who dont think they should be appointed into these roles.

The Scottish NHS case has exposed a case of a bully who thinks he can insist that female staff occupy what should be a single sex femle only room while he changes.

Ooo yep .... there is also the expectation that he would be assisted by other staff to commit work place unlawful assaults on patients.

Plussss.... the whole claim that he cant work out if he is male or female will need to be resolved by the NHS at some stage.

And it exposed and closed a loophole of doctors being able to hide misconduct by changing their "gender".

So yep ..... applying law as intended is bad bad bad cas its hate

Employers and others will move to a gender neutral model

Single-sex toilets are already gender-neutral.
This has been explained countless times.

Male men and women and non binary people go in the male loos. Female men and women and non-binary people go in the female loos. They are inclusive of all genders.

So if you believe gender is important and sex is irrelevant it should make no difference to you whatsoever to go in one gender-neutral loo instead of the other, in order to comply with the law and be inclusive of those who believe sex sometimes matters.

If the two spaces are different to you, then you are saying that sex sometimes matters. Welcome.

Tandora thinks that asking for the existing requirement for single-sex toilets to be respected is all going end in tears because businesses will just replace them all with 'gender neutral' toilets and things will be worse for women and we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves.

There have been many many well-informed discussions about regulations covering toilet provision, full of references and links to documents and so on, but it appears that Tandora hasn't read them.

I said upthread that separate men's and women's toilets are a requirement in building regs, 'universal' toilets are an optional extra EXCEPT where there is not enough space to provide separate single sex toilets. I linked to the appropriate document, did you see that Tandora? here it is again
Toilet accommodation: Approved Document T

Existing building tend to have what was always the standard configuration: separate women's and men's toilets, and third spaces which are accessible toilets for disabled people. Fourth spaces which are unisex toilets have been added in some buildings.

New building will have to have separate women's and men's toilets, and accessible/disabled toilets UNLESS there is insufficient space, in which case building regs compliant 'universal' toilets will suffice.

Why on earth would a business based in a building which already has the standard configuration of women's, men's, and disabled toilets rip out some of them - and in the case of the Barbican, it only seems to be women's toilets they are removing - and replace them with all-unisex toilets?
Why go to all that expense, all that upheaval, to degrade the quality of toilet provision for the majority of the population, in order to cater to the tiny tiny percentage of the population who are trans?

In addition, they may find themselves in breach of health and safety/workplace/equality regulations, which have clear requirements for the number and specifications of toilets in a building. So Tandora's prediction of fewer toilets and all of them gender-neutral has quite a few regulatory roadblocks to get over..

So why would anyone go to the expense of ripping out functioning and regs-compliant women's toilets and replace them with unisex toilets because a very small number of people say they prefer them?

Virtue signalling? Misogyny? Spite? It certainly doesn't make good business sense.

The fact that the GLP is trying to declare this as a victory is a shameful misrepresentation of their action and the results it achieved, apparently playing on the partisan driven credulity of its supporters

Yes. JM/GLP have scrounged hundreds of thousands of pounds from their deluded followers, and what they've 'achieved' here is basically the EHRC having to explain the law to these supposedly intelligent people veeeeery slooooowly.

There's nothing in the EHRC's response that the GLP and their supporters couldn't have found out for free with a bit of Googling.

.

Over on Reddit most seem to think that Jolyon & Co have forced the ECHR to back down but several users do appear to recognise that nothing has changed & that the GLP are grifters.

Indeed, if you read the EHRC’s letter it is very clear that there has been no backing down. It rejects all three grounds of complaint directed at it (one it doesn’t address because it is directed at Bridget Phillipson).
I don’t think GLP should be misleading donors & potential donors about this, they are using monies donated in good faith and then not being truthful in return.

www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1ldp5pm/comment/myf1jbe/?context=3&share_id=cvrDGhTea0UsGe0xYvsGq&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=10

Bet that comment went down like a sack of shit.

Er no, because public opinion is taking the exact opposite trajectory on this issue.

agree unisex are much more expensive and take up more space, which is why I believe that there will not only be fewer services designated specifically for women, but also fewer facilities over all.

Aren’t numbers of toilets mandated by the H&S act?

I was enjoying the dawning realisation on Reddit that the GLP has achieved the square root of fuck all.

The EHRC’s lawyers’ letter has some pretty pointed comments:

This is an unsustainable allegation which is improperly made absent clear evidence (of which there is none).

This adds nothing.

Your contention is … misconceived.

And then basically tells the GLP if it wants to actually do something meaningful, all it needs to do is engage with the EHRC on its guidance.

Minimum numbers of toilets and urinals are provided in the ACOP for the Workplace Regs.

Since it’s statutory guidance, you have to be able to adequately justify not following it if you end up in court.

How are trans people threatened? The SC judgement makes it clear that they are protected.

There's not a day that goes past that the fox killer doesn't make some irrelevant, erroneous or deliberately misleading quote/statement on his Bluesky account. This is just one more.