Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Sex Matters intervenes on single-sex services guidance judicial review

17 replies

IwantToRetire · 05/11/2025 19:04

Sex Matters has been given permission to intervene in the judicial review being brought by the Good Law Project against the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

The hearing on 12th and 13th November in London comes nearly a year after the Supreme Court heard the For Women Scotland case.
The Good Law Project is challenging the national equality watchdog’s interpretation of the Equality Act and workplace health and safety regulation, and its guidance, following the Supreme Court’s judgment, that employers and service providers should stop telling employees and service users that they can use opposite-sex facilities if they identify as trans or non-binary.

This is an important case which could provide greater confidence that the law is clear and that women should not find themselves forced to share “female” toilets, showers and changing rooms with men.
We hope that the judgment will provide greater confidence to service providers and employers and their frontline staff, to trans-identifying people and to women about what the familiar “male” and “female” signs on a door mean in terms of who is allowed in.

More at https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/sex-matters-intervenes-on-single-sex-services-guidance/

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Shortshriftandlethal · 05/11/2025 20:40

Great job! There can be no letting up.

Greyskybluesky · 05/11/2025 20:44

Thanks OP!

SidewaysOtter · 05/11/2025 21:19

Good. Glad my donations are going to an excellent cause.

I look forward to The Fox Botherer getting his arse handed to him.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 05/11/2025 21:30

That's an excellent intervention. Thank heavens for Maya & Sex matters.

Keeptoiletssafe · 05/11/2025 21:48

Good. We need single sex toilets as they are safer and healthier for everyone. Next step would be to ensure the health and safety floor to door gaps come back in all cases where there’s a single sex area in front of the cubicles/rooms for ventilation, cleaning, supervision (in an emergency), and prevention of wilful misuse.
These 4 reasons were in the building standards when the 1992 Health and Safety legislation was being drafted up.

They would never have expected enclosed, sound-resistant mixed-sex cubicles to be argued for as the default. They are dangerous. We need as few as possible.

Seriestwo · 05/11/2025 23:31

Sec matters are doing really important things. Good to see

fromorbit · 07/11/2025 17:33

After GLP loses that case they are facing the Fox Basher being sued for defamation that case is also going ahead in which the key evidence for the defence is based on the ultra reliable Euan "Sophie sparkles". So another defeat seems likely.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5400132-glp-are-going-after-sarah-philmore-and-are-going-to-lose?page=18

It is a busy time for bad lawyers.

Page 18 | GLP are going after Sarah Philmore and are going to lose | Mumsnet

Get the popcorn folks. GLP is getting ready to lose again. They are going after barrister Sarah Phillimore for referring to a man as a man. They thi...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5400132-glp-are-going-after-sarah-philmore-and-are-going-to-lose?page=18

RareGoalsVerge · 09/11/2025 15:56

Is this the same court case as is being referred to here?

Sex Matters intervenes on single-sex services guidance judicial review
RareGoalsVerge · 09/11/2025 16:35

Sorry got distracted before finishing what I intended to write...
Does anyone know if the court proceedings are going to be live-tweeted by anyone? I am sure GLP will be putting their own spin on whatever happens either way.

Seriestwo · 11/11/2025 08:56

I can’t find this, is it today?

Misla · 11/11/2025 09:46

Interesting thread on Bluesky about it. I think the user Ashleeee has some legal background:


windfola.bsky.social
‪@windfola.bsky.social‬
Hey Ashley what are the ramifications if we lose the case, tbh with the shit that happened in the supreme court I don't hold much hope.
11 November 2025 at 08:26


‪Ashleeee 🌊🪭‬ ‪@reactiveashley.bsky.social‬
· 1h
It depends on how the GLP lose the case. If the court rules on a narrow administrative law basis, deciding only that the guidance cannot be reviewed, then there is very little cause for concern.


‪Ashleeee 🌊🪭‬ ‪@reactiveashley.bsky.social‬
· 1h
However, if the court examines the full merits of the case and rules against the GLP on domestic law, it should then consider making a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act. If it refuses to do so, it would in effect be creating “bathroom law”, which would be a serious matter.


‪Livvy‬ ‪@mslivvy.bsky.social‬
· 50m
So we’re basically saying that if GLP f this one up, they could inadvertently be responsible for setting in law the very situation they are trying to protect people from? And if SM are going in with ‘proof’ that article 8 does not exist for trans people, and the court agrees?


‪Livvy‬ ‪@mslivvy.bsky.social‬
· 31m
At this point what does the risk/benefit analysis look like? It seems like losing could bring about far more harm than any benefit from a ‘win’ would bring. Can someone explain what a win would even look like?

Ashleeee 🌊🪭 (@reactiveashley.bsky.social)

Cat mum, aunt, and algorithmic witch. Kiwi in London. Digital rights & IP law. Green. Ex-Alphabet policy. (she/her) I usually follow back if you reply or like my post.

https://bsky.app/profile/reactiveashley.bsky.social

Seriestwo · 11/11/2025 10:14

thats helpful, thanks. I’m not a lawyer so I find understanding this case difficult - but it feels important. I’m surprised the intervention hasn’t had much attention but there is a lot going on in GC courts!

Misla · 11/11/2025 10:20

Seriestwo · 11/11/2025 10:14

thats helpful, thanks. I’m not a lawyer so I find understanding this case difficult - but it feels important. I’m surprised the intervention hasn’t had much attention but there is a lot going on in GC courts!

Well it was only over one aspect of the interim "guidance", and that's been taken down anyway.

At the beginning the GLP were all "We're taking the EHRC to court about the FWS judgement!" and a lot of trans people thought they meant they were going to get the judgement changed, or the interim guidance changed. Neither of which is the case.

Also, they haven't been given leave to proceed. That happens tomorrow, then if they are given leave, the case continues (IANAL and hopefully somebody can explain it better than I can).

Seriestwo · 11/11/2025 13:23

I’m confused - it’s the high court? How are they allowed to do that, surely the Supreme Court trumps the high court?

Misla · 11/11/2025 13:36

Seriestwo · 11/11/2025 13:23

I’m confused - it’s the high court? How are they allowed to do that, surely the Supreme Court trumps the high court?

They're taking the EHRC to court. For one bit of their interim "guidance".

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page