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

Aren't peanuts really beans ?

(Ducks and runs away)

I agree. He has shot down their interpretation of it as not compatible with the equality act.

I suspect his wish to be able to say this things is the reason he is no longer practising.

We need to bear in mind that the updated EHRC Code of Practice has not been published yet, so until it is we cannot judge how clear it is.
Perhaps when Bridget has finished using it as a means to prop up the short leg to stop her desk from wobbling we can then see if it is clear or not.

If you change age 8 to 15 it doesn't make it sound quite so innocent

If you are happy for your 15 year old son to share overnight accommodation with his 15 year old trans male school friend then they should be allowed to do so (maybe the parents of the 15 year old female boy may not be quite so happy with this situation)

What the judge has said that, depending on the facts of the case, there may be a "strong argument" that allowing trans-identifying men to use the women's toilets does not necessarily cause direct discrimination to other men. It will depend on the particular circumstances.

For example, suppose there are men's and women's toilets adjacent to each other and each are equally spacious and nice etc.

In that case, the judge said, allowing trans-identifying men, but not ordinary men to use the women's toilets wouldn't necessarily cause the men any direct discrimination. The reason being that although they are treated differently (they have to use the men's rather than the women's) they are not being treated less favourably as the men's toilets are equally as good as the women's toilets.

Perhaps if the circumstances were different then the outcome may be different. Take the example of a large construction site where the workers are mostly men. There are mens toilets throughout the site but the only women's toilets are half a mile down the road.

Consider an ordinary woman and a trans-identifying woman. If the trans-identifying woman were allowed to use the men's toilets but the oridinary woman was forced to only use the women's toilets half a mile away then she is plainly being treated less favourably than the trans-identifying woman and could bring a direct discrimination claim.

But all of the above is just about direct discrimination of other men.

For the women who have to accept trans-identifying men in their toilets that is then an indirect discrimination claim that they would have to bring.

No, it would go against their charitable status. Their organisation was set up specifically for females so their service cannot include males, however they identify.

Yes, but what does 'for the purposes of' mean?

It's mixed sex legally (let's just shelve morally, and biologically for now), but linguistically it's still single sex??

I don't particularly care if there is a toilet that women and TIMs can use, but other men can't. As long as there are still single sex female toilets alongside, it's virtually no skin off my nose (as far as I can tell).

But it's a completely different ball game if it's labelled women.

it's the labelling of it. How does anyone know what the fuck toilet they're meant to go in, if the label is bollocks

For the purposes of GLPs argument I think.

So using this reasoning the then government was legally obliged to ignore the Courts when they were challenged over Rwanda policy because of their manifesto?

Is he on glue?

That's because it is written using legal terminology, but these terms have been thoroughly analysed and explained in a lot of detail by the EHRC, by Sex Matters and many other legal experts.

I don't consider the GLP to be expert at all.

In practical terms, it would need clear labelling.

A point of order is that ultimately all governments only follow court rulings voluntarily. If they chose to ignore one (e.g.; votes for prisoners) then there is fuck all anyone can do.

I agree. I mean the fact they think it’s going to a toilet would out them and nothing else.

I don't think that you can apply this to the Girl Guides and Scouts - they are two separate organisations.

Also, they are charities and associations. So they have to abide by charitable objectives and also their membership rules are covered by Part 7 of the Equality Act, not Part 3 which covers service providers.

It's just not a fair fight....😂

thanks for answering my questions!

Is this right?

firstly, most of the time the gents have equal provision to the women, in terms of decent spec.

And I absolutely don't think, in terms of toilets (unlike the WI), that other men are discriminated against. It's nonsense. They've got their own very nice toilet. End of.

So in terms of telling JM that no, men are not discriminated against if TIMs use the ladies, I get it in terms of actual discrimination. Except they are being treated differently than men who say they are women. in So as far as the comparison goes they are being discriminated against, are they not?

And secondly, let me see if I've got this right. Is the judge is saying that should TIMs enter women's spaces, men will not be disadvantaged, but that doesn't mean they can enter, because women might be disadvantaged?

Because that's not how it read. And also, I thought this had already been dealt with!! That yes, women are disadvantaged, so it's a non-starter.

I suspect this will be run past the legal dept and come back with a post it saying 'no, not the case - they're barking mad'. But I'm sure someone in her dept will write a very kind note back.

Is the judge is saying that should TIMs enter women's spaces, men will not be disadvantaged, but that doesn't mean they can enter, because women might be disadvantaged?

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying.

Oh dear what can the matter be,
Good Law Project stuck on the lavatory,
They were there from Monday to Saturday,
No body knew they were there.

Now if they had not chosen a private, enclosed, sound resistant toilet room, they would have stood a better chance of being found. To have a safer design, it would have to had to have been a single sex toilet cubicle in a single sex environment. And guess what HSE say should happen to toilet door and partition design when the environment is not single sex?

Oh dear. However GLP look at it they are stuck with mixed sex, private designs. Which affects the health and safety of any occupant. And it is not what some of their payers want.

Ps. Lav used to mean the washbasin. Loo is posher. I tend to use loo when I only have a few characters left. Not a euphemism.

PPs. The offer is still there GLP. I am happy to discuss safer designs for everyone. I want everyone safe. However it means making mixed sex design safer, not encroaching on safer single sex spaces.

Just finished work so going to have a good look at this later.

You also need to watch out for women being given one female toilet and males having access to six different options as that's being treated less favourably.

The opposite might also apply however equal provision for men and women doesn't necessarily mean the same number of toilets. Women need more toilets for equal provision. Festivals and outdoor events calculate the number of toilets based on males and females. Women get more provision per head due to queuing times.

Therefore what we can't have is single sex toilets with 200 men and 200 women with 60 urinals and 198 women and transwomen toilets and then only 2 single sex female toilets either. Because that's not fair provision and discriminatory against women. It would have to be proportionate for the population and reflect sex based toilet needs if they are going to go down this route of bullshit.

It would also have to be labelled as inclusive toilets rather than women's toilets and there would have to be clear public awareness of this. (So a sign saying single sex provision is also available in x location would be the way to go).

And then you'll still get the creeps actively seeking out the single sex... Inevitable based on performances we have seen online. This would however mark them as creeps.

Fox Killah has been getting a pasting on X

He's done more for our side than those he purports to represent. And they had to foot the bill for the privilege!

Me too. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could confirm, does this mean gyms and restaurants can/will allow transwomen to use women’s toilets without renaming them as ‘mixed’ sex toilets but workplaces must separate on the basis of biological sex?

Does that make sense?

If there is a provision to allow mixed sex toilets for women and TIMs then surely the organisation would also need mixed sex toilets for men and TIFs - otherwise discrimination?

Yes it is this that is confusing me. Even after reading others replies (thank you). Shame the ruling was not more black and white. It’s going to leave a loophole of confusion that TRs will drive a bulldozer through. Am (faintly) hoping that ESRC guidance will make it all clear.