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

I have never needed share tokens for Michael's work
https://knowingius.org/p/good-law-project-v-ehrc

Thanks. I have been able to read that as I get his emails. But the Q&A tomorrow is only open to paid subscribers.

Just for the record - Melanie Field was not involved in drafting legislation. It was never her job & it's beyond her skill set.

I have 2 to give away, but they only work if you have had a free subscription before using the same email address.

DM me your email and I will send it.

Yes strike down is bad wording its more in line that the law /clause becomes "void" (if its against uk inalienable rights or other legislation)?

In this context if the courts made a different ruling by agreed the PCs GR with no subPC sex allowed males to be "females" in the ES10 and this was "against¹" the Workplace Regs 1992 that 2 incompatible laws cant be on the books at the same time so the Female bits of the Reg is voided.

¹ as in 1992 the intent of the parliament was to exclude all males but by 2010 the intent was to allow the males who were called females in

Gurrr
Still need a better discription...

I am going to have another go on the McLeod fundraiser.

His challenge is about the Supreme Court not to permit his application as a n intervenor in the FWS Scotland case

Aside from the fact he resides in ireland and therefore has no standing anyway.

Domestic rules on what the Supreme Court will and will not consider admissible in a hearing is not within the jurisdiction of the ECHR, because that is purely a matter of the UK Courts, he was not a litigant in the proceedings therefore is unable to make a successful appeal.

As for everyone musing over the analysis of the judicial review, Micheal Foran addresses the paragraphs that were a cause for concern on here so worth a read..

And finally the analysis in the judgement is obiter and not binding on anything. The Court dismissed the arguments in their entirety.

End of.

No, it doesn’t become void. It stands, and has to be obeyed. Up until the government follows its obligations to change it by repeal or amending it, in parliament, by the regular methods.

the Female bits of the Reg is voided.

I don’t know what this means.

OMG will nobody think of the nonbinaries

Coming back to associations; presumably LBGTQ+ organisations have to let anyone join as they are not based around a single PC? Though I suppose they could argue they are a single belief organisation?

I love little factoids like this (courtesy of Laura BBC)
‘It's more than 100 years since the first woman took her seat as an MP - there weren't even women's loos when Nancy Astor arrived. She's said to have nipped down to the Ritz to use the facilities before a ladies' toilet was installed in Parliament's neo-gothic palace.
More than 100 years later, Rachel Reeves arrived in the Treasury in 2024 to find a urinal in the chancellor's bathroom - that shows how long it has taken for women to get access to all areas of politics’.

Ah, but its a gender neutral urinal, Rachel!

Nope. They can fuck off. They are recognised in law.

as long as anybody can join which usually they can as allies

This reminds me of the consultation document commissioned by the government.
It’s remit was supposed to be looking at toilet design for people with long term health conditions but it didn’t mention most of them (no mention of epilepsy, diabetes, asthma, heart conditions, endometriosis). Periods were referenced in terms of transmen. Enclosed toilets were recommended for certain designs on the evidence on transactivist designers.

This was discussed:
“ It should be noted that male crotch height, while likely to encompass a majority of urinal users, does not necessarily account for the height of trans and non-binary users, or people who have undergone gender reassignment surgery.
There is no large-scale anthropometric study indicating the anthropometric dimensions of trans and non-binary groups, or the prevalence of use of urinals for these groups. It is not sufficient to recommend a lower standard urinal height to accommodate all people regardless of sex and gender, as a height that is too low is not optimal and presents barriers in use.”

I am happy (bemused) for them to mention non-binary crotch heights but not at the expense of missing out the long term medical conditions they should have been studying.

Reader, they won a Stonewall award.

non-binary crotch heights

😜

Nope & we have case law to support that position.

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.

I do have some sympathy for employers who process ID that says "female", irrespective of a GRC or not, and who receive a DBS check (if it's a school etc) that has been done through the sensitive route. In these cases, the male staff member is "legally" female on paper. How can they have a disciplinary process that stops this staff members accessing female spaces?

However, my sympathy runs out pretty quickly because allowing males to access girls' accommodation simply shouldn't be OK. The upshot is that in a scenario like this, it's entirely down to the male employee to decide whether to admit to being a male. As a mum in a situation where a male teacher could access female students' residential accommodation by claiming to be female (and presumably with ID that backs this up), I'm angry because I don't think I could do anything to stop it from happening.

Lots of people would probably prefer a single occupancy toilet - who wouldn't?* - but that doesn't establish an entitlement to it, and can it really be proportionate to require the expensive and disruptive installation of building-regs-compliant fourth spaces everywhere there are single-sex toilets?

*yeah, ok, cottaging😏

[It] refers entirely to children at school and not staff, which seems a large blindspot.

Definitely. A huge blind spot. I don't know how many trans-identifying teachers there are but it's not zero. The safeguarding guidance for schools needs to make it clear that no staff should access spaces for the opposite sex, as well as no children.

In the long term I would think it is going to have to become normal and usual that establishing biological sex is a part of employment paperwork.

Yes. That's the only way to properly stop any employee accessing spaces for the opposite sex. In the Peggie and Darlington cases, Upton and Henderson were known by their employer to be transwomen i.e. to be males. But there will be males who haven't told their employers. This loophole needs closing.

Ok say:

Law 1 said pool must be open 24/7/365

Law 2 said pool must close at 8 on weekdays 10 on weekends and never open on a Bank Hoilday

The pool can either be open or closed at any given time.
So obey one law and break the other is the only option?

what is the courts position

A judge did 🙈

There are no such laws. I understand "what if", but part of the parliamentary process of drafting of laws involves makings sure they don't clash so obviously.

This is a really interesting read on the webpage of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel about the process of drawing up new laws:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/legislative-drafting-a-fictional-example/legislative-drafting-a-fictional-example-html

Hummm...

It should be noted that male crotch height, while likely to encompass a majority of urinal users, does not necessarily account for the height of male trans and male non-binary users, or people female trans user who have undergone gender reassignment surgery to extend her urethra.

🙄 because a male would have a shortend urethra after surgery and not be able to aim into a urinal.

Annnnd boy children exist!

They failed to notice that young boys age out of the shelter of the women loo and are not full grown men??

Fookin funny to examine the tiny minority of a tiny minority of females and ignore the 49% of boys who will be short

If it was a woman (or man) who ever looked after a child the whole designed for adults is an obvious issue in public provision🙄

It was bizarre on lots of different levels and infuriating as that was the part of the consultation that should have been looking at what the millions of people with medical conditions NEED in a sanitary facility design.

On a related note, unless it’s AI, the GLP director showed little respect for people who need accessible toilets when he was discussing his lost case.

Its down to management to stop the teacher from either going to begin with or to assign other task and bar him from both female and male areas.

If he is on the up-and-up he would be delighted to have a solution which protected him. If not the school need to get rid of him.

But that will not happen in a captured school or one which will not produce a written policy.

Again the law should have a clear section that if one is doing something one would not be allowed to do as ones actual sex one must fess up and ones employer may not discriminate against one.

You could put your own if A happens B happens safeguarding in place but would be barred off school ground😬