GLP v EHRC judgement is coming tomorrow

[DownhillTeaTray]

Listing in the Administrative Court for tomorrow not before 11am: read out of the judgment in our challenge to the EHRC Interim Guidance.

https://bsky.app/profile/goodlawproject.org/post/3meo6ow7ow22k

Two wildly different responses emerging. Surely the only relevant factor is whether the EHRC acted unlawfully with the guidance. That was dismissed, they didn’t.

Nothing is changing, am I wrong?

Well quite. Surely misleading people like this should carry some consequences?

I think the issue is, as is very apparent from the Reddit board, that many TRAs like to exist in an echo chamber where reality is not allowed to intrude. Even reasonable arguments are immediately shut down as bigoted. The GLP can exploit this and people will keep giving them money.

ho ho ho my sides

Even the judge said the GLP did not have any substantive legal arguments......nor can they seem to be able to read the judgment with any clarity of thinking.

Confusion and blurred boundaries are the foundation this shit is built on.

This is exactly it, and Jolyon and the other bottom feeding grifters at the GLP know this perfectly well. They know who they are dealing with and their fragile grip on reality and love of alternative narratives.

No, nothing has changed. The EHRC guidance was watertight.

Hopefully protect-the-dollz will set them right on Reddit. He at least seems to have some grasp of the law if not being duly grounded in reality.

He wasn’t very happy with GLP earlier in the week for some reason.

This. If you assume "there is nothing beyond the text" and also assume that the reader supplies the meaning, this is what you get.

Can anyone suggest how this applies when workplace toilets are also used by service users?

I’m currently doing a part time post grad and the university doesn’t have separate toilets for staff and students. This week’s nonsense was new laminated signs, to relabel the toilets as “toilets with urinals” and “toilets without urinals”.

Naturally, as most men don’t give a shiny about this, by break time the sign had been removed from the toilets previously known as the men’s, leaving a choice of men’s, toilets without urinals and gender neutral, but no single sex option for women.

I’ve done an emergency name change as I am considering what to do. Does this ruling help or would it only apply if I was an employee in this scenario?

A comment on Reddit directly from the GLP:

"Note: we (and others) are appealing the decision of the High Court. Whilst we understand that these FAQs are an accurate statement of the law following that decision, we do not believe that its conclusions are compatible with the human rights of trans people, or that it reflects the purpose of the Equality Act 2010.
This FAQ will be updated over time to reflect the most relevant concerns, and our understanding of the judgment."

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1r3mo4n/our_faqs_after_the_high_courts_decision_today/

" Case by case" refers to the initial decision to provide a facility, not later on in deciding who gets to use it.

What exactly are they still challenging, the workplace stuff?

Stonewall Law > G(Bad)LP Law.

This is one of the things I find most distressing about this ideology. It so often shows quite fundamental disrespect and disregard for (derision, even) the "most vulnerable" it claims to champion. Treatments not researched or withheld; science and law misrepresented; frighteningly hyperbolic catastrophising; neglect of detransitioners...

The notion that an employer or anyone else is required to “police” the use of a lavatory, person by person and day by day, reveals the application of a “logic” so strict that it is divorced from reality and from any sensible model of human behaviour.

I'm just reposting this delicious "you are completely wrong and probably deranged," from Judge Swift to GLP.

Because it's just beautiful.

I see discussion in the judgment that services can (obviously) provide single sex services and apply the legal discrimination necessary to do that.

I see the part about no one should be left without an accessible service (good, yes of course)

I see the reminder that not providing a single sex service may be discriminatory. (Good.)

Where is the bit about single sex services can be used at will by (some) people of the opposite sex that the GLP are talking about?

Posts from reddit realist protect-the-dollz

Protect-the-dollz does have the measure of it. Says the GLP have omitted key parts and are a hair’s breadth away from lying.

Baroness Falkner who headed EHRC has tweeted she feels vindicated.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1r3m9x1/high_court_rules_on_lawfulness_of_the_ehrcs/

From Reddit, I think a user was decrying how unfair it is that cis folk are protected from sharing toilets with people of the opposite chromosomes, but a third space toilet would mean trans folk are forced to share toilets with people of the opposite chromosomes.

Surely (and I may be getting this wrong) the idea is that nobody should be made to share toilets with the opposite chromosomes (or sex, the opposite biological sex) which means, in the interest of fairness which that reddit user appears to be focused in, people use toilets assigned according to, I don't know, biological sex?

Has reddit circled around to agree that biological sex is actually important?

Shall not hold my breath. But the reactions from GLP and trans reddit are WILD.

I honestly can’t get why GLP are celebrating. They’ve got nothing new.

Ah. Ignore: answered by Gargoyles and Protect-the-dollz

I bet she does. It is shameful the way she has been smeared by some MPs who should know better. She has always stood firm on women's rights and refused to be cowed. Amazing woman ❤️

that guy actually knows his stuff and keeps getting voted down I'd love him to come comment here TBH....