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

but surely the point of EHRC guidance is it provides clear, plain language, understandable guidance for the general public & businesses - no lawyers or huge groups needed to unpick & interpret it.

And it very clearly doesnt do that as evidenced by this thread (among many others).

He didn’t say it that strongly. It was more of a possibility.

Trivially, I do approve the use of the word “lavatory” rather than bathroom. Or “lav”, very Mitford-esque.

I'm not getting that feeling. I'm getting a feeling that some people don't like what the Supreme Court said and what was said today so are desperately picking holes and others are looking for ways to deal with the 'yeah but yeah's' Maybe I'm an optimist, but I do think Jolyon had done very good work, but not for the side that's funding him.

You know how there are those 'hilarious' regional accent to English Dictionaries...

...there should definitely be a TRA to English version.

It really is disgusting.

yep. There are loads of TRAs on X declaring it as a win.
Its insane. It’s basically blatant lying as their only possible option. Desperate times for TRA.

yeah I hope this is just a ME problem and everything is otherwise completely traighforaward & understandable by everyone who needs to know about it.

but somehow I dont this this is the case sadly

I wonder if they either think BP is stupid or that she’ll do what they demand. Or they’re just performatively grifting.

Returning to the unfortunate
I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. However, the circumstances of the case would be decisive. (For the purposes of the EA 2010 the lavatory would be mixed-sex, but for the purposes of the Claimants’ submission in this case it would still be labelled “women”.)”

I can't see how it would not contravene the EA2010 to allow some males to use the 'Women's' but not others.

The Supreme Court said that even holding a GRC does not make a man a woman in the context of the EA, and therefore no man, GRC or not, is entitled to use the women's facilities.

Purely on the grounds of logic, how is it legally 'discriminatory' to require a transperson to use the toilet designated for their biological sex?
They have no right to use the opposite sex toilet, even if they have a GRC.
They are not being deprived of toilet facilities. It's not like they need adaptations to use the toilet designated for their sex, they just choose not to use them because they feel uncomfortable using them.

They might not like it, but is that really, legally, discrimination?

Employers are required to provide single sex toilets under the workplace regulations, and you’re right that doesn’t apply to you as a service user. Generally speaking service providers are not required to provide single sex spaces at all. However, you can still claim that it is indirect sex discrimination to only provide mixed sex facilities. Men don’t care, many, many women do legitimately care and would therefore be treated less favourably than men.

It is.

The problem with this is disengeous pricks who are deliberately and willfully refusing to accept this guidance so are playing a game of misrepresentation and outright lying. It's not a problem with the law not how clear it is.

It's a problem with individuals who can't bear being told no so use any means they can to deny reality.

We have come across more than a few of these on MN who claim to have "never had a male experience in their life" (so never pissed with their dick) and are now biologically female because they have had extreme body modification and take hormones.

They KNOW this is bullshit. But they are determined to persist with the bullshit because they don't want to back down or admit the truth.

This should not be our problem to solve.

I couldn't resist sharing this response on that X post. Got that song stuck in my head now too 😂

GG don't accept males any more.

Like Upton “I don’t know what you mean by biological female. Im not a robot, so I’m a biological female”.

Isn't there a weird inverted snobbery around this ?

"Lavatory" being a dead giveaway that you are pretend posh,. as real posh people say "toilet". ?

🤣

"(For the purposes of the EA 2010 the lavatory would be mixed-sex, but for the purposes of the Claimants' submission in this case it would still be labelled "women".)"

I think, and it really is just me musing here, that this sentence might be read as:

For the purposes of [the real world] the lavatory would be mixed-sex, but for the purposes of [this weird interpretation of the EA 2010 and the Workplace Regs that GLP are arguing is the correct interpretation] it would still be labelled "women".

GLP were trying to argue that the EA 2010 and the workplace regs both allowed for "trans-inclusive toilets".

For the purposes of [the real world] the lavatory would be mixed-sex, but for the purposes of [this weird interpretation of the EA 2010 and the Workplace Regs that GLP are arguing is the correct interpretation] it would still be labelled "women".

It's such a pat on the head for them isn't it. Those are the real ladies, you can't use them but look, we have another place over here we can call ladies just for you 🙄

Act like toddlers, get treated like toddlers.

I'm worried about that position being reversed though, because it's based on trans-inclusion being intrinsically discriminatory against the other boys. But Swift is saying this is not intrinsic, but fact dependent.

Leaving aside charitable aims for now, this would mean moving away from using Schedule 16 but conceptualising GG as girls+transgirls, not discriminatory because overall no group is less favoured.

He doesn't really explain what would be needed to overcome Coll, but he's opened up a seam to be mined.

As GG now only allows female membership, it doesn't discriminate against any males.

I’m a terrific snob, really, enough said.

My dear! Loo, but not toilet. Though what is very non-U is caring about how one is perceived, so we both fail there...

This ruling

"When is a peanut not a peanut?"
"Never"
"When is an orange a peanut?"
"Never"
"Yeah but what if Heston makes an orange look like a peanut?"
"It's still a fucking peanut"
"Yeah but that hurts the oranges' feelings so that's not fair. You have to let the oranges be peanuts"
"No we don't"
"Yeah but the orange are not happy about this. We need to reclassify them as peanuts"
"No they are still citrus fruit and need to be identified as such so that people with a citrus allergy know".
"But peanut allergies are worse. Citrus allergies aren't a big deal and don't affect many people"
"They are a big deal to people with citrus allergies".
"People with citrus allergies should just not eat peanuts then"
"The problem isn't peanuts. It's oranges. And people with peanut allergies also shouldn't have to deal with peanuts that don't think they are peanuts for the above allergy reasons"
"But oranges..."

It's disengeous bullshit at this point. They know. They just don't want to hear no.

The problem is if GG leadership want to include transgirls. They've just been told that this would not be intrinsically discriminatory, but depends on a 'less favourable treatment' analysis of overall relevant provision. They'll surely ask their lawyers to have a crack at it?