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

The calibre of GLP's legal brains

Meant to quote @RobinEllacotStrike here, but internet problems…

“Toilets for biological women.
Toilets for women and transwomen.
But you can't provide JUST toilets for "women and transwomen" as that would discriminate agsisnt women- so there must be both?
Then we will see one toilet for women, and the full ladies loos with multiple loos (previously for women) for women & transwomen.
this wont be good for women & girls”

This was proposed by M Robin White I believe, amongst others: that all “women” including males who claim they are women should use the communal toilets and the appalling women who didn’t want to could have a separate space.

Of course, this may be theoretically possible, but you might end up with all the women using the single sex, single toilet, while the man uses the multiple cubicle toilet on his own. The same problem applies to the female nurses being told to use a cupboard to change, while leaving the man in all his solo glory in the women’s changing room.

Justice Swift seems to have suggested that common sense should apply, so any employer or service supplier would look at this suggestion and realise there are many more women than there are men who claim they are women and supply the sensible option, which is a women’s toilet and a single use mixed sex one.

Laws will never be perfect and this one isn’t actually that complicated per se. The only complication is that there are so many men who object to women’s rights and are arguing every toss. Women still are not equal, so more people are listening to the irrational men than there ought to be.

'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?'

Harassment, going by Darlington Nurses.

Most people dont try piss off the people they work with and can respect the employer instruction.

NB who demand special treatment for self contained units will be the same in the rest of the office space.

From what I remember, the legislation on associations is different and it is specifically unlawful to include all women and only some men - is my understanding correct?

An employee knowingly using facilities of the opposite sex could potentially be harassment/sexual harassment, if it made others uncomfortable. And it would be going against policy, given that the Workplace regs require male and female facilities, so could also be a disciplinary issue, depending on workplace policy.

I just cannot get over the audacity of Jolyon’s letter to BP. He LOST on all points!! Yet he thinks he can claim the EHRC guidance is unlawful despite the judge explicitly saying the guidance IS lawful. Its totally mind boggling.

You are discriminating against me by making me work in a open plan office with others of the same job as me rather than giving me my own office.

You are discriminating against me by making me use the male toilets with the others of the same sex as me rather than letting me use the women's

If that teacher is in the girls sleeping space he is a problem and the adults¹ involved are as guilty as him.

The issue of mixed by stealth is that it undermines safeguarding. And its a choice in most cases as not many males will have a GRC. But the fact that an adult with GRC can circumvent safeguarding checks is a problem of itself.

The problem is if given the choice between safeguarding obligations for the girls/boys and employer liability lots of schools will opt for their empolyer role. It is easier to fob off a parent who knows a complaint opens their child up to bullying by the school itself.
Eg. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5488835-to-ask-for-parents-in-brighton-who-would-object-to-males-being-in-their-daughter-changing-room-without-even-their-knowledge-to-come-forward-and-help-with-this-legal-case

In the end it is a management problem.

The NHS had a whole bad woman policy.
Her need for single sex ward was less than his want to be in her ward and she was to be lied to by staff and labled as a racist (transphobic) by staff and moved off her female(but not) ward as a punishment.
For the staff member who has been informed she requested same sex care? Who has a legal obligation not to engage in (medical) assault? Not a peep on how he had to managed it.
And of cource there was no instruction to other staff as that would require management to recognise that other staff have eyes.

¹ its an issue as if the management allow mixed sex by stealth the individual staff member can only remove themselves roles and tasks or leave their role for a new employer.
Eg the GG leaders who left were pushed out and blamed for putting safeguarding first.

biological men on an inspecific criteria who self identify there, but not other men

That's what I think. What's the criteria? 'Because I want to' isn't criteria.

But it's a decision of the service provider, apparently. But again, what is the criteria. 'Because they want to'?

Could a service provider say they are providing these toilets because they want to be inclusive? Again, I don't see how that would stand up in court. Once you've drilled down into why these men, but not other men, there's no plausible reason.

We all know that the presence of women is a decisive factor when it comes to these men. And if you actually went into it, in court, that would become immediately apparent.

edited to add that I think one of the reasons this has irritated me so much is precisely because there's an inherent assumption that a woman's toilet is for something other than women's biological needs.

The entire concept of allowing transwomen into women's toilets, in any circumstances, is based purely on male validation, for which the women's presence is crucial.

The concept itself is bloody sexist.

Nope

The reg is about dignity and the current social moral code too.

Sanitary conveniences
20.—(1) Suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences shall be provided at readily accessible places.

As long as men can be charged as sex offenders for exposing his penis the social moral code it that a man should be able to use a urinal without worrying of a female being in the room.

The law recognises that a urinal is not a female toilet

Does this mean you can no longer be "Dr [surname]" and have to revert to Miss/Mrs/Mr instead?

If so, presumably the same would apply to JM - so by implication (because he uses the KC title) he is likely to still be under the relevant regulator?

But are men actually bothered about this? I haven’t seen any evidence.

That so many women are on board with trans ideology, and are often its most vocal proponents, suggests it is not so much a man versus woman issue as an ideological one.

It may have been happening but that doesn’t work for legislation and building regs and standards and the Sexual Offences Act. These are in place for a safe society.

It puts pressure on the person to use the wrong sex facilities - I have listened to young women who get scared going to the mens. The pressure to conform to an ideology versus how safe you feel is tangible. I think it is a very small number who would actively want to go into mens rather than the accessible or womens - and it would be very location dependent.

And it’s not fair on men who don’t want women in their toilets, or the businesses with the extra expense of sanitary bins and disposal. Some bolder, to use an old term ‘ladettes’ (perhaps by alcohol in them) will misuse use the loophole to ‘have a laugh’.

This is the reality of what happens by default to the mens when there is ambiguity: the designs lose the urinals, the cubicles become fully enclosed floor to ceiling. Washbasins may or may not be in the cubicle. The cubicles are smellier, they are less easy to clean. They get misused more because no one can see what’s happening inside. By misuse I mean sex, drugs and vandalism. There’s a list of over 1200 people who have died in toilets from drugs. In 2008 MPs, academics and industry professionals discussed how The Sexual Offences Act 2003 had not stopped sex happening in toilets. There’s hookups you arrange on the internet. Which may be in shopping centres etc.

Anywhere private in a public space. Rod Liddle discussed the BBC new disabled toilets when discussing allegations about Russell Brand.

Now everything is being formalised you have to have rules. The judge is right about common sense too (children, cleaners and emergencies).

There is a serious lack of sanitary provision in this country which is getting worse. I don’t think toilets are ‘working’. However they have always been a problem - the Sexual Offences Act having so many amendments involving toilets is evidence.

There’s no duty on councils to provide public toilets. It means some people don’t go out. It affects poorer, older and disabled more.

We need toilets to be safe, clean and available.

In the first example it is not you as an individual who is being discriminated against, but the concept of individua/private space itself - in favour of communality/shared space.

Discrimination is the process by which we differentiate ( tell things apart/categorise) one type of thing from another.

The employer has no obligation to provide female/male provision at all if the employer is not obliged to employ both sex. Provision is on head count and an Er can have less provision based on employment rate expectation.

So the Nurses (+ doctors +care staff etv) mainly being female and outnumbering groups eg doctors (50/50+) etc should have more female provision overall.

Eg the Fire Service had only male provision and almost as soon as women got in and managed to secure single sex spaces the FS allowed self IDing males into the womens areas. FS will have to create an extra area or justify dicsrimination.

Yes, I have evidence.

Do we know if "she" is a male with a DSD (like Khelif) or a female with a DSD?

Someone was registered female at birth who has "lived as a woman" could easily be a male. Like Khelif.

@Keeptoiletssafe Would you be kind enough to clarify something for me? If a service (not an employer) decided to have 'women and TIMs' toilets and 'men and TIFs' toilets, would those have to be fully enclosed rooms? They couldn't simply rebadge existing single-sex rows of cubicles?