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

Those chambers are riddled with trans allies

Yes. Which is why I mentioned them. Even they must be looking at what he and the GLP are doing and having a few thoughts about it?

I certainly hope so

I am not sure why we are having the same discussion over and over again.

The court confirmed that the EHRC guidance is correct ie

Biological Sex Basis: The ruling supports the interpretation that single-sex spaces are legally based on biological sex (sex at birth).

No Mandatory Ban: While single-sex spaces can be restricted, the High Court did not mandate a blanket "bathroom ban" for trans people, suggesting service providers should use "common sense and benevolence".

Guidance Lawful: The High Court found that the EHRC's guidance, which suggests trans women should use male or gender-neutral toilets, is not unlawful.

Alternative Facilities: The ruling encourages providing gender-neutral or single-occupancy facilities to accommodate everyone

Which on reading this makes me wonder why everyone has allowed TRAs to wind everybody up as though it is the end of the world.

This "not mandated" means we are effectively where we always have been, that should a provider choose they can make a toilet single sex but if they do this must provide additional gender neutral.

Or does anyone have any actual quote that says providers MUST provide single sex facilities.

Part of the problem is Phillipson not allowing the EHRC guidance to be published.

No point us going on and on about what we think is the right approach if we haven't seen why Labour is conspiring to make it seems such a huge event.

This could all have been done and dusted by now.

Although happy to have had GLP look like idiots, but they could only do that because Labour is to frightened to upset the TRAs.

Has Phillipson made a statement as she had a stake in this ruling?

We'll discuss what we like, thanks! Without using AI summaries.

The Bar Standards Board should discipline him for his dishonesty

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-public/reporting-concerns.html

Which is ironic, as he is currently bringing a complaint to the BSB about Sarah Phillimore.

Exactly but that means I can say why go round and round in circles.

We've been saying this for nearly a year now.

How does that help in say writing to MPs or even Philipson.

Until she stop shrouding it in secrecy we cant be sure what her angle is.

And if as described, and not just by AI that single sex is not mandatory, what was the point of the Supreme Court ruling.

That seems far more significant than getting caught up in another GLP hysteria.

Your LLM seems to have been trained on GLP not the actual judgement.

Several points in the judgement where you are wrong:

Single sex toilets MUST be provided in workspaces UNLESS there is not space.

Men who identify as women (‘transwomen’) cannot use female spaces but separate spaces can be provided for them.

Toilets don’t need to be policed - it is to be expected that people who identify as trans use the toilet expected of them (that is the one of their biological sex, or unisex) and can be disciplined if they do not.

GLP are already appealing for money to appeal this decision.

Its ridiculous.

The Government needs to get on with it.

But suspect they are hoping that GLP and others will continue to chip away at the certainty of the implications of the Supreme Court ruling so that eventually then can provide guidelines that basically say the norm will be for TW to be entitled to "women's toilets".

Today's ruling doesn't exactly help to get single sex facilities the norm https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/good-law-project-EHRC-AC-2025-1953-judgment-13Feb26.pdf

And yet here you are, discussing it. Telling us off, it would appear.

Once the judgement was published, that is what most of us have been commenting on. Not the GLP nonsense. But at first, that is all we had. You clearly haven't read most of the thread. As it has become clear how batshit the GLP are being, we have also been commenting on that. And on how it is being taken on trans Reddit.

The link to the judgement is earlier on this thread.

So boring that all anyone can say to someone having a different opinion to them is "telling them off".

I am saying that today's ruling although blocking GLP contention hasn't moved forward making sure the Government gets on an implement guidelines in line with Supreme Court ruling.

That surely is the most important part.

I am genuinely concerned that Labour is only too happy for all these interventions at it allows them yet again to put women's rights on the back boiler.

Surely you want than, not endless games whether GLP or Stonewall or whoever.

Its nearly a year now and yet again Labour think women are not a priority.

I am not sure why we are having the same discussion over and over again.

this makes me wonder why everyone has allowed TRAs to wind everybody up as though it is the end of the world.

No point us going on and on about what we think is the right approach if we haven't seen why Labour is conspiring to make it seems such a huge event.

From someone who can't even do a decent AI prompt.

Archive link here https://archive.ph/E8mfl

On that x thread there is a video reposted by Gay not queer, in which the speaker advocates “ if you see a terf please punch him in the fucking face”. When are these men going to be held to account for this?
edited to correct the quote

GLP raised almost 500 k to lose disastrously. All that money could have been used in far more dangerous ways.

Instead they reinforced the Supreme Court ruling. Yes GLP is lying about the result the scam continues. Yet that scam helps our side as long as GLP leads the legal challenge against reality their own incompetence will help our side to greater victories.

They have already raised £18,346.95 to appeal. May as well have burned it.

Outside Pink News their spin is failing

BBC
High Court dismisses challenge to single-sex toilet guidance
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lrd0ey074o?

Guardian
Good Law Project loses challenge to interim EHRC advice on single-sex spaces
Judge rejects argument that advice is legally flawed and excludes trans people from services they have long used
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/feb/13/good-law-project-loses-challenge-interim-ehrc-advice-single-sex-spaces

International Comparative Legal Guides
Good Law Project loses High Court battle over EHRC toilet guidance
https://iclg.com/news/23557-good-law-project-loses-high-court-battle-over-ehrc-toilet-guidance/amp

From the Law Gazette.

High Court dismisses judicial review over EHRC trans interim guidance | Law Gazette https://share.google/wvSU4XT9pJCBrGbiB

The Good Law Project said it will appeal. Its announcement for a new fundraising campaign noted that 'the EHRC is claiming costs of almost £300k, and we have to pay our lawyers too'.

It's moved things along by clarifying that single-sex spaces mandated by enactments outwith EA2010 (WR1992 in this case, but will hopefully extend to prisons, schools etc) operate on a sex means sex basis.

SSSs enabled by Schedule 3 have never been mandatory, and this is a problem in its own right irrespective of the trans issue.

Swift J has opened up the hypothetical possibility of a trans-inclusive space which would qualify for a SSE if it was single-sex, but instead is legal under EA2010 for other reasons, based on a less favourable treatment analysis of the surrounding circumstances.

My feeling is that such spaces are difficult to conceptualise, because SSEs usually arise from considerations of safety, fairness and decency, which inevitably affect women more adversely than men.

But I'm not so arrogant as to think they can never exist. And it's a bit nanny state to force women to protect themselves at the expense of their trans allyship, if it's really not what they want.

Attempting to make everything that would qualify for SSE under Schedule 3 (irrespective of whether its legality depends on an SSE) mandatorily single-sex would be legally onerous (needs a PMoAaLA test every time) and anti-libertarian (the poor trans allies).

It makes more sense to lobby for mandatory sufficient single-sex provision for specific things, to be listed.

Eg "If providing changing room, must provide enough single-sex provision for everyone that wants it: after that, knock yourself out with the inclusive variants."

But in some ways it's peripheral to the trans issue, except insofar as trans has caused a rise in undesirable mixed-sex provision, both official and unofficial (ie "single-gender ").

And are they both labelled ‘women’s’? Or is one labelled ‘Women’s +’??

Although I get this, thank you although ‘may’ be indirect discrimination?

PTD Yes. That is just not true. A mixed sex service can be run which includes both cis and trans women but not men, without it being direct discrimination against men. But it may be indirect discrimination against women if there are no separate single sex services.

This is so clear and helpful. Thank you.

My feeling is that such spaces are difficult to conceptualise, because SSEs usually arise from considerations of safety, fairness and decency, which inevitably affect women more adversely than men.

I agree with this. Lawyers enjoy hypertheticals. Blanket rules don't come particularly easily to us.

Discrimination is only unlawful if there is a disadvantage. I struggle to see how a situation could
(a) Require separation between men and women in the first place, but
(b) Warrant a seperate provision of facilities for women and those with lady feelz, and
(c) Not consitute unfavourable treatment of one group or another.

However, I would not say it was impossible for such a situation to occur. It would however have to be extremely clear to anyone entering the facility that there may be TIMs in there. "Trans-inclusive" is not going to be sufficient: Whilst Swift J adopted that terminology, he did so more for convenience than anything else.

This judgment is very helpful and I for one encourage JM to appeal as high as he wishes.

Whilst it is easy to say in hindsight, and without wishing to undermine the level of institutional capture, I was pretty confident for today. I cannot see any other legally defensible position than this one. This mess was created by the GRA, and the unintended consequences of legal fiction.

I agree.

And in other news at-least 3 MPs have so far posted on social media that the High Court ruled that EHRC must change their guidance.

🤯

I have seen this from Carla Denyer and Nadia Whittome. Is Zarah Sultana the third? 🤔

The Supreme Court ruling was crystal clear.

The interim EHRC guidance was clear.

Today’s judgement is thorough and clear.

Ok, the judge explores one or two hypotheticals which taken out of context are possibly a bit confusing. But the amount of dust the GLP is managing to kick into the air is astounding.