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

Because you couldn't police a facility strictly for the disabled unless it was for a visible disability.

We should have men, women and accessible.

I started this as I wrote in to the Document T consultation to say why single sex designs were important because of the door gaps. My points were ignored in the analysis. So I analysed the analysis….I have done biological research before (2 degrees) so have a reasonable standard of statistics and interpretation.

Then FWS happened and it was joyful for 5 minutes as I could stop going on about bloody toilets.

But no! Here I am still having to point out the obvious. I am that dog with a bone. I have researched loads on what is actually happening which proves again and again I am right. I know what happens in reality, in real toilets and I will keep on (between housework, work, raising family etc).

All the other life stuff means I am off now….

Definitely. The only protected characteristic where one group can generally be treated more favourably than another is disability - you can treat those with disability more favourably.

White people do have the same protection

That ^ LA was looking for BAME participation.
But say the LA staff actively excludes Indigenous English Londoners (white mix of ethnic backgrounds ) from say a garden allottment (I was going to use a pool example but ....... 👀😬)

The member of the community who is white could sue for race discrimination. And having a system which rejects white individuals would be racist and unlawful in the same way having a system which rejects black individuals.

The difference is for sex it is 100% lawful to prove you have a valid reason to not include any men and you do not have to provide any alternative.

The Indigenous test would be how narrow can you set your admission terms to reject the "wrong" people as admission to most organisations even if they are very local or niech would not justify you rejecting someone you would reject on race alone.

So the local Shetland KKK branch may not have a "whites only" problem if it rebrands as Indigenous but the London branch of the KKK would end up in trouble.

The PC Sex never has a problem its Female or Male.

The Courts in effect have said the PC GR also has two sub-class TIF and TIM.

So any claim of GI has to benchmark against both GR and Sex.

While Race has a benchmark of "Computer says No"

And massssssivly funny when Europeans adopt the language without thinking

DownhillTeaTray · Today 13:59
(Some of) the Reddit transes are beginning to understand the implications:

AshJammy98

It is though. The guidance isn't in effect or statutory now so the law hasn't changed.

Penny is still in freefall 🙈

Sorry which is W vW per above?
Ta

This is just my musings on the matter, para 77 is very long winded and goes all around the houses. He does seem to be fudging it a bit.

The judge says that he is "less certain" than the EHRC (who used the word "must") about this point but doesn't say that they are necessarily wrong.

Later in the paragraph he says

"Even though the EHRC’s obligation ... is to provide an accurate statement of the law, the court must apply this requirement recognising that any statement of law will rest on some assumption of fact, even if only generic."

To me, he appears to be saying that the EHRC must have had some specific real-life situation in mind, even if unspoken and/or very generic. Some undeclared assumptions that have been made.

And that it is ok for the EHRC to do that:

"Where a body such as the EHRC has issued guidance that rests on factual premises that are permissible, the court should hesitate before concluding that the guidance as issued was unlawful."
.

The Judge then further went on in para 78. GLP had argued generally that the Update didn't recognise that applying many of the provisions of the EA2010 would be very fact specific and case specific - that there was no room for absolutes, like the word "must".

The judge disagreed:

[78] "... I do not agree. That point was sufficiently recognised at paragraph [2] of the Interim Update. That refers to the “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” test. That is the requirement for factual evaluation that permeates through all the provisions on single-sex provision and the possibility of derogation from the prohibition against discrimination at section 29 of the EA 2010"

So, he seems to be saying (although I may have misunderstood this) that at the initial stage of determining that single-sex toilets were a proportionate means of a achieving a legitimate aim, whatever factual evaluation that would have been done at the time would be the "factual premises" that are assumed for the purposes of para 3a.

Or I may just be hopelessly wrong about everything, I don't know! I did also find para 77 very confusing.

Someone with more legal backgound than me please confirm

The ruling has no "independent clauses" so each section should be read as a logic stepstone
Eg
" As explained in preceding paragraph 5 (et al) ..... (X is lawful / X is not lawful) because... "

The Good Law Project lose again. Who in their right mind funds these loons.

They always lose… but somehow they win

That’s always been my understanding, the test is already met or not met when designating a space as single sex.

We've had the Bananarama defence, now we've got the ABBA judgement:
So how could I ever refuse?
I feel like I win when I lose
😄

🤣 🤣

And not forgetting the Nick Berry Gambit
Every loser wins

Perfect 😂

Surely if men = women, then losing = winning?
Same, innit?

Source: Press For Change https://share.google/PT3XQArOwqm0ncYxs

That is why I am looking for a rebuttal to the lie.

From what KeepToiletsSafe says (I don't want to summon her, she deserves a break!), if you set up separate toilets for 'women and TIMs' and 'men and TIFs' you will probably have to use enclosed rooms, not cubicles. There are also issues around potential discrimination.

If you allow TIMs and TIFs into opposite sex, existing single-sex toilets, then they lose their single sex exemption and @Another2Cats ' understanding of paragraph 77 becomes valid - you must let everyone in.

Either way, the TIMs won't be happy.
IANAL and happy to be corrected

I thought this too. But the judge also says it's fine to do stuff as long as you are not offering less favororable treatment to anyone.

So a workplace could offer individual toilets, 'trans-inclusive womens' and 'trans inclusive mens'. The individual toilets, provided there are enough of them, satisfy the requirements of the regulations. And the other toilets are fine to have as well (assuming they're not offering anyone less favourable treatment and comply with the regulations for mixed-sex). So no need to look at the 'proportionate' single sex test.

The issue is space and throughput

An accessible unit is by design bigger and has safety features that individuals need to use the provision. (Third space)

If the design is based on throughput the number of units provided will be based on expected population size

If multiple groups begin using the third space as a fourth space the provision for the third space is reduced.

The fourth space users are already counted into the F/M provision

The issue becomes how should the count be orgainsed

So
(total population ÷ 2) + disabled population
Or
(Total population - disabled population who actually need the extra space/aids - any other who wants a MSS not SSS - line skippers) ÷ 2 + (disabled population .... + any other...SSS + line skippers)

The social contract to not use specific disability provision is broken as a cultural norm.

Respectfully, no we shouldn't, because where do people who need a hoist fit in? Or space for a carer to change pull ups. Or handles they can actually use. Or space for a wheelchair. Or flashing light distress alarms because they're deaf. Or those who need braille on fittings because they're blind Or those who need a loo desperately when they need one. Or dozens of other things that mean they can't use a standard loo set-up. Not don't want to. Plain can't.

For some of us, specific adjustments means the difference between going further than I can go without a loo trip or not being able to and I can't see why my needs, which are also a protected characteristic should be conveniently lumped in with accessible toilets, which are also necessary. I agree with you that these facilities are abused and I loathe what it says about the selfishness of society and the basic and often unconscious prejudice against the disabled, but saying more about that would take me off thread, so I'm off altogether.

Your work is seen and appreciated here.

Thanks again.

😂

JM hums this to himself as he flits about the house kimono-clad

You also need to consider what proportion of the trans population could legitimately use disabled toilets due to disability. Given the number of canes, wheelchairs etc seen at TRA protests, what we know about the devastating impact of testosterone on female pelvic floor, the very sub-optimal outcomes of genital surgeries, the level of autism and other mental health conditions, it seems likely that a very significant proportion of trans individuals could legitimately use the disabled/accessible toilets due to disability.