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

Good.

Wtf with the spinners and fabricators.

Any insights on how this may affect or inform SP's appeal against the Kemp judgment?

Can anyone point out, in summarily dismissing this legal challenge, at what point the judge was “clear” that the EHRC would need to rewrite the code?

Can we expect a statement from the government, given that they intervened in the case?

Quite, I've always heard that all trans folx are lovely and kind and never ever a problem to anyone else (which would potentially explain the complete lack of reference to the Canada mass shooter). So why can't they all be in a bathroom together? Or is it shades of the sporting competition where a parent said it was, of course, brilliant that there was a trans category but perhaps it should be divided into AFAB and AMAB to make it fairer?

Aside from anything else, what's making me angry about this is that a lot of GLP's followers/supporters are quite vulnerable kids. The ethics of them being lied to is off the fucking scale.

“provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service would engage paragraph 27 [of Schedule 3] and would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status.”

"There is nothing in the judgment that suggests that the question of what is “proportionate” is a question to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis with individuals; rather it relates to whether the rule is lawful.

The judgment describes how service providers offering a single-sex service are also exempt from the prohibition against gender-reassignment discrimination (as long as their conduct is proportionate). For example, a “trans man” (a woman living in the male gender) can be lawfully excluded from a female-only service, without this amounting to gender-reassignment discrimination"

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/supreme-court-judgment-summary-and-practical-advice/

And they're going to appeal then lose even more money.
Let's hope the tickets for Transmission are selling well.

Just checked, they're offering resale tickets but it's looking very sparsely booked so far. Sad times

Over on Reddit, someone has commented that HR departments will be sending people for chromosome testing 🤣

I mean EHRC show no indication of this so come on people get real, why would they

I’m glad I’m not on Reddit, BlueSky or X just reading second hand nonsense here is bad enough!

They'll most likelly declare another 10 months of 'consultation' before saying anything. 🤔

Oh yes I’d forgotten about that 😂

It doesn’t even make sense. The judge dismissed the challenge in full. Why would the EHRC have to do anything?

😂😂😂

Better than a genital inspection 😂

Exactly that whole office has just said great dismissed that’s over, nothing to change. What do the pundits on SM think they’re doing next? Whatever it is they’ve got it wrong.

I am amused to see (on Reddit) hints of a conspiracy-theory connection between PTD and Mumsnet!

Doesn't the fox killer, as a lawyer, have some sort of responsibility to his acolytes, who, let's face it, are predominantly mentally unwell, to not rewrite judgments and lie to them? He's no better than those romance scammers.

Does this mean Phillipson has finally run out of road and has no further reason not to publish the guidance?

Para 25 is interesting (my emphasis):

^One example is the way in which the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is defined. The protected characteristic is identified by reference to a "process" for the purpose of “... reassigning ... sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex" (see section 7 of the EA 2010). The protected characteristic is not, therefore, defined by a notion of self-identification. Another example is the suggestion that some of the protected characteristics will "trump" others as if they were in conflict in a zero-sum game. In fact, the provisions in the EA 2010 are more nuanced. The way in which the derogations from section 29 set out at paragraphs 26 - 28 of schedule 3 to the EA 2010 are formulated is a case in point.

This is fabulous.

Oh no poor PTD 🤣 🤣 the ignominy of association with us awful harpies at Prosecco Stormfront. I could almost feel sympathy 😂

What other courts is the High Court binding on? Whilst it has gone against the Kelly tribunal, for example, does it overturn it?

Interesting that he seems far more intelligent and down to earth than most on there, and with a grip on reality... and so they are suspicious of him!

Some of them can't bear P-t-d because he bursts their bubble with howwible facts, so he's consistently downvoted.

And, because he has at least some grip on reality, they obvs think he's a plant 🙄

He is sad.

:(