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

So it seems like GLP are pretty much claiming that the judgement says trans women can use female single sex spaces while the judgement says the opposite.
At what point, does this complete mangling of the law by GLP have any consequences? If I were a law organisation and started posting for e.g that shoplifting were actually legal or driving without a licence, without actually doing it myself, then what come back could there be?
It feels like they're just making stuff up at this point

Very starkly noticeable that women, and women's article 8 rights, were entirely missing from the entire judgment. Women don't exist in this conversation.

The judge said that people are supposed to police themselves. And no, that doesn't mean service providers can tell a trans person who they know is biologically male that he's OK to use women's facilities.

But some people just wont be told.

I thought they did that, too, then doubted myself. Talk about gaslighting, you feel like you're going a bit mad reading it. It seems to be deliberate, subtle distortion of equally subtle but key distinctions to create total uncertainty. And is clearly deliberate and strategic.

well indeed

BUT it IS the guidance that trap people will be using, and thats sort of important?

The Telegraph have rushed out an article

https://archive.ph/ShKz2

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/13/bosses-can-ban-trans-women-from-female-toilets/

That's what happens when you take academic linguistics and queer theory and try to force them onto the real world.

GLP is a not-for-profit organisation

it's deliberate. This will be the news trans people read, so there will continue to transgress.

People who rely on their guidance deserve everything they get IMO. Perhaps they can sue them if they feel they were misled.

What?

The EHRC have said the case is dismissed. They’re not changing their guidelines.

I take that to mean that a case could be made ( in law) for a TW to use a female toilet if there were not any other provision. But of course, there tends always to be another provison in the form of a male toilet, and/or a unisex toilet.

Do a search on user name Keeptoiletssafe and you will get loads of detail and threads

https://goodlawproject.org/resource/faqs-trans-inclusion-after-the-high-court-decision-on-the-ehrcs-interim-guidance/

from this doc:

Is it lawful for service providers to allow, for example, trans women to use women’s toilets and changing rooms (and vice versa for trans men)?
▼
Yes. The High Court is very clear that it will likely be lawful for service providers to allow trans people to use toilet and changing room facilities which align with their lived gender. There is no requirement of a ‘bathroom ban’.
The High Court concluded, at [26] (emphasis added):
“The [Interim Update] concerned when it would be permissible for a service provider to make a single-sex provision. It does not exclude or prohibit other provision.”

Later in the same doc:

What are the requirements for the provision of toilets, washing, and changing rooms in the workplace?
▼
Workplaces are required to provide toilet, washing, and changing facilities on a single-sex basis except where these are provided in individual rooms which are lockable from the inside.
Single-sex toilet, washing, and changing facilities in the workplace must be provided on the basis of ‘biological sex’. It is not permissible for employers to allow, for example, trans women to use the women’s toilets, and for those toilets to be considered single-sex for the purpose of the workplace regulations.
The High Court is clear that this does not prohibit providing additional provision which is not single-sex, at [26]:

Er.....................??

Pink News write false stuff on purpose for clicks. We've seen it before - didn't they have to apologise? Ergo more clicks.

Yes, exactly, agree that’s why they are doing it.

This is the one aspect where reports are wildly at odds.

Service providers can't be forced to provide single-sex facilities in the first place, so it's more a question of labelling/building regs??

No option but to make coffee and read judgment avoid chores.

No sign of a press summary on the Judiciary website so they must think it insufficiently interesting.

This will continue until the government sets the record straight and unequivocally validates the Supreme Court judgement in full.

Trying to say that work places have single sex spaces but that's the limit of it? Services are mixed sex regardless of labels?

is it not a crime or something to misrepresent the law / legal judgements? Can't anything be done? IANAL

Am I right in saying that even the DT's opening para. is (inadvertently, I'd assume) misleading:

Employers can legally ban transgender women from using female toilets and changing rooms, the High Court has ruled.

1. Sure it's not "can", but "must", as FWS confirmed that women (& female) = well... female!

2. "Has ruled" suggests this is a new development, but it's not - like the FWS judgement, it's just confirmation of what always was.

This is maddening.

With one shareholder who chooses the directors.
Guess who that is?

The more fiction that GLP gives out, the bigger the come down when reality bites.

It's certainly not going to be me crying into my cornflakes when it turns out I've been massively fibbed to and spaffed all my money crowdfunding for the privilege.

This only applies when there is not a matching male equivalent or a unisex provision. If there wasn't such an equal provision then this would be the " unfavourable conditions" referred to.

But where do you ever see a female only toilet without there being one for men or a unisex one too?

A guess the possible sex offender case by case or a passabilty test case by case ?

Naaa ...... I cant see any possible issues with either of those options
🙄😬