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

Okay, I'm just about getting my head around this.

But it's raised another question.

On what basis actual would a TIM be able to access a toilet that is for him and women, but not other men. What would be his justification?

And why wouldn't that justification extend to other men who might consider themselves justified, like gay men, disabled men, old men?

And again, what's the criteria for 'being trans'? Any man can claim it.

It really feels like a bit of a backwards step to me.

And I know it would involve five toilets, because whatever women's toilet you have that lets in TIMs you have to have a men's toilet lets in TIFs. Which all sounds like such a faff it's unlikely.

But the nature of transactivation is that TRAs will be pushing for this in all the places that consider themselves ragingly inclusive. Then trying to guilt trip everyone else.

Transactivism never stops.

On what basis actual would a TIM be able to access a toilet that is for him and women, but not other men. What would be his justification?

It's not up to the TIM to justify, it's up to the service provider. In situations where it wouldn't disadvantage anyone to do so, if they wish to provide a "women + TIMs" service or a "women and TIMs and elderly men" service then they can - and then a TIM can of course use it.

Equally if the service provider wishes to provide a women-only service in justifiable circumstances, they can do that. And then a TIM would not be able to use the service.

I still find it very hard to believe that all these discussions about minute legal details which are reminiscent of the "how many angels are dancing on the tip of a needle" religious debates, all this soul searching, all these pages and pages of -often acrimonious- debate, the long and costly court cases, the falling outs between friends and families, all this just because some men would like to get their dicks out in female only spaces. Madness.

They can, yes, and they’ve always been able to despite the guilt tripping Datun mentions, which is the problem, and the reason many of them were “inclusive”. I think “women and trans women” spaces should only be permitted as additional spaces where single sex spaces exist or clearly labelled as mixed sex. They’re not actually women’s spaces.

Again, it’s all just attempting to legitimise complete nonsense.

I think he is being very very clear on the test applied to get protection under the PC.

If the DSD person was not doing "anything" there was no PC so only the PC of Sex comes into play.

The same as if the individual selfIDs as NB or publically says the end objective is not to "be seen" as the other sex then the Courts have already ruled there is no PC other than Sex.

So eg for an employer there would be no obligation to provide a fourth space.

Yes, agree, once single sex and accessible spaces are provided, you can do whatever you want in addition to that.

The use of a unisex sign.with both ♂️ and ♀️symbols caused controversy since.some non-binary employees claimed to be neither sex and that therefore there was no loo available for them.

Do these people never stop and think for a moment about how stupid and self indulgent they look to most ordinary people?

Exactly.

They i think both come down from french?
Laver is wash and a toilette was the morning ritual of dressing which would have included chamberpot and hot water

Hopefully the threat of indirect sex discrimination will persuade service providers that only providing a mixed sex space where privacy and dignity is an issue is going to be a problem.

Double fuck off on this:

Its reliance on the provision of universal and ‘third spaces’ to meet the needs of trans people raises practical challenges and could impact on the overall availability of single-sex facilities and the ability of trans and disabled people to live in equal dignity with others.

Third spaces are a legal requirement for disabled individuals who need the extra space and/or transfer equpiment.

The fourth space or universal toilet / individual mixed sex toilet unit has no obligation to have any accessability features eg wheelchair turning area

HR can say thats "nice dear" to the NB (after they get the NB bit in writing) the NB need to claim to be trans to sue under the PC

[(Edit)
The self contained units + and accessable one were always lawful so HR could have also just taken off all the signs and made sure bins were in all the units]

Maybe I missed it, in that case.

The wording is

“A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”

and I know he said it's not self ID, it's a process, which of course, it's meant to be. But given that part of the protection comes from the person proposing to undergo it, it can be strung out indefinitely.

I agree, non-binary and DSD aren't covered by it, though.

Aha. Well spotted.

The paragraph you've grabbed is where the sleight of hand moment sits that then allows the spin - my bold.

[61] …In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “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…

In his "strong argument" scenario, transwomen get access to both toilets yet other biological males only get access to one. IANAL but that seems like direct sex discrimination to the other biological men. It is definitely less favourable to the other biological men that they only get access to one option - which is obviously how it should be for all biological men because it's a legally permitted single sex exemption.

It's difficult to know from the wording but I'm assuming he's talking about two single occupancy rooms, one labelled for men and the other for women. If in fact he's talking about general facilities, each with multiple toilet cubicles, not only would it be direct sex discrimination to "other biological males" as above but it would presumably also be direct sex discrimination towards all of the women who are expected to share with the transwoman.

His "strong argument" seems weak and desperate.

On a plus note, it's very good that he's describing transwomen in the context of "other biological men".

The text is cut out from the body of the ruling

1 the judge stated he was going to use GLPs terms in a prior paragraph

2 the prior paragraph was about sex and used an example of lipstick.

3 taking the term separate lavatories has the judge used this for block provision or is this a individual self contained unit?

IMO moving the qualifer makes it easier to read

(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”.)

Whether different treatment is also less favourable treatment is, therefore, a qualitative question. In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, 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.

The Judge is looking at it and writing on the basis of an appeal.

So will be writing a very long and detailed and this section here covers your YesBut claim ruling.

The focus will be to be correct in the law and case law so that if when the appeal judges judge his homework he get a 100%

Where it will get interesting is scenarios where a biological male is recorded as "female" on a work employment system and is acting in "stealth" at work. I have a real world example of this but it relates to school residential accommodation instead of toilet facilities. Although it relates to accessing a different single sex space (in this case, going into the girls' sleeping accommodation on school trips), the issue at hand is exactly the same. How can employees stop biological males from accessing female spaces if they insist that they are female and there is no written evidence that they are not?

In my IRL example, there is a teacher who is very obviously male, from observing head shape, shoulder shape and gait. I've never heard this teacher speak but the other features are so obviously male (the gait being the biggest giveaway) that I really don't need any more evidence to trust my own eyes. I've not specifically named this teacher to staff but I found myself in a conversation with two staff members when it was obvious that they knew exactly who I was talking about (I assume because they also have eyes). One staff member said "I think I know who you are talking about and you're wrong". This teacher goes on school trips with students. AFAIK this will involve going into the girls' accommodation.

Obviously I could be wrong about this teacher's sex. But I really don't believe I am. I suspect instead that this teacher has done a very good job of getting lots of sympathy for "often being mistaken for a man". I should also add that on some occasions, this middle-aged teacher goes to school wearing long stripy socks. I've not seen that myself but my daughter and her friend told me about it: they were talking about how oddly this teacher dressed sometimes so I asked for an example (as an open question) and this was it.

It should be simple for employers to keep biological males out of female spaces (toilets, changing rooms, sleeping accommodation etc) but I would love to know more about how they can in scenarios where males can still both deny and legally obfuscate their sex.

I'm beginning to think this 'loophole' the judge has given the GLP to spin doesn't really matter?

It would be an additional extreme inclusive gesture some super woke virtue signalling organisation could choose to make but only after they've ensured there are single sex spaces for women.

Go for it if you want I guess.

I doubt there are going to be many organisations that have both the commitment to the ideology and the space and the money to indulge this performance.

But if they want to, fine?

IKR. Society must bend to the will of men who want to access women's spaces, or they'll kill themselves.

But in reality it has been working, hasn’t it? Prior to the Supreme Court judgement some trans men were using the mens and there didn’t seem to be problems?

I think the toilet laws could be challenged by a trans man if they result in restrictions which aren’t really necessary.

I was also thinking more generally about other spaces. There are possibilities for some men only spaces to be ‘men + trans men’ instead.

Given this setup, having all loos unisex would be legal, but women at the company asked for women-only loos and got them. I haven't monitored closely but people do seem to obey the signs - I sometimes see men waiting for a loo when there is a women's one free.

This thread has been really helpful, thank you.

So the people on trans uk Reddit all blithely assuming that they can keep using opposite-sex toilets as long as it’s a ‘service provider’ have been misled by GLP?

Very much so. Wickedly so, imo. They are a mentally unstable lot and the GLP are giving them unjustified hope that they can still invade our spaces.

Non binaries can fuck off.

They have no legal status. They do have a sex. That's their self inflicted problem not anyone else's.