GLP v EHRC judgement - Thread 2

[Another2Cats]

This is a continuation thread from here:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5489699-glp-v-ehrc-judgement-is-coming-tomorrow?

I doubt he can explain it himself, so the rest of us don't have a hope.

Thanks. I thought it was just me who wasn’t following.

I usually understand the points he is making, despite their ridiculousness.

He seems to be saying that BP is really a male rights advocate, a man dressed as a woman, or that all GC believers are really men dressed as women and therefore all misogynists

I think that might offend some of his followers

😂

That was my take, but it did seem to be at odds with approved speech

Nothing Jolyon says about toilets makes sense. I don’t even think he knows what he’s fighting for.

If everybody is allowed in all toilets, they all have to be in individual closed rooms with their own sinks. The only difference would be the unisex, female and male pictogram sign on the door. That’s not what some of his funders are paying him for. The country isn’t going to change all the legislation and building regs for his cause.

It’s over, Jolyon.

He is quite, quite mad. It does seem to represent the crazed hyperactivity preceding the imminent collapse of an unsustainable (possibly fraudulent) construction.

My understanding is -

Suppose a museum has a large communal single-sex toilet for women-only and a large separate communal single-sex toilet for men-only. There are also two single fully-enclosed toilets, each with its own sink and full door, large enough for wheelchair users. Currently both of these two toilets are labelled Mixed Sex/Disabled.

The museum could choose to instead label one fully enclosed toilet 'Women & Trans Women/Disabled' and the other 'Men & Trans Men/Disabled' and that may be legal?

As only one person uses these toilets at a time, a woman would never share it with a male. And the sign doesn't lie and say women-only.

So two 'mixed sex' toilets, may be relabelled in an odd manner and remain 'mixed sex'.

I don't like it to be honest. I don't see why trans women should ever be grouped only with women. Groupings based on gender stereotypes are regressive nonsense; they should be resisted not pandered to.

But it's not remotely a huuuuuuuuuuge win. And it ignores the Enbies. Plus, if I were disabled I'd be very cross.

But it's not remotely a huuuuuuuuuuge win. And it ignores the Enbies. Plus, if I were disabled I'd be very cross.

Oh we are, KitWyn, we are!
Disabled people campaigned for decades for the adapted facilities that they need, not that they 'feel more comfortable in', and to have them glibly opened up to able-bodied transwomen [it's usually TiMs] as some kind of consolation prize for not being allowed use the women's toilet is unacceptable.

Like women's spaces, disabled spaces rely on trust, they can't be 'policed' - we just have to trust that able-bodied people who don't need them will not to use them. The least we can expect is that no-one will actively encourage a special caste of able-bodied people to feel entitled to use them.

So it was shocking to read in Judge Swift's ruling the suggestion that not only is it all right for able-bodied transpeople to use the facilities designated for disabled people, but that those spaces are not really 'accessible' or 'disabled' spaces at all, they are, according to the judge, 'unisex' toilets which, he implies, have just been temporarily granted to disabled people, whereas now they can return to their original intended use as 'unisex' provision for able-bodied people as well.

73 One point raised was that the unisex provision is often labelled “accessible” or “disabled”. That is a current common practice, but it is not a practice that is invariable or need continue. There is no reason why, if only as a matter of sensible accommodation, the labelling could not change.

That is breathtakingly wrong in so many ways- factually incorrect, insulting to disabled people, dismissive of our rights - it is shocking that a judge, who in other places showed a lot of common sense, could wave away disability rights like this.

The part that confuses me is that I thought restricting access to provision needed to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

What is legitimate and proportionate about excluding some males from a single loo that can be used by other males?

In the scenario you present, if one of the single loos was empty, why should a male or female wait to use the currently occupied one? It seems illegitimate and disproportionate to do so.

You forgot racist - he's racist as well. I imagine the tweets are deleted now.

Maugham is ranting and raving about suicide, abortifacients, condoms (??!), Streeting, Labour in general and "who signed the letter from the MHRA" today. He also seems to be trying to shame Guiding & the WI into working with the GLP, last night he recommended that parents buy their kid's drugs from Susie Green and flee the country if possible. He will never admit that he was wrong about PBs

'Girlduding'?

Call the WI and Girldruiding liars then ask them to (presumably) pay you for your services?

Not the strategy I would take.
I probably wouldn't want people to look too closely at which organisations truthfully claim describe the law and those who... don't.... either.

Ha I didn't even notice his girlduding/druiding typo, smash that keyboard harder Jolyon.
Peter Daly has his number

Yes Foxy, I agree the men’s rights movement in drag, your boys, are “transhate”. Of women.

I knew Bates Wells rang a bell re trans cases - they are the Green Party’s legal firm.

https://bateswells.co.uk/news/bates-wells-announces-impactful-and-significant-judgment-ali-v-green-party-of-england-and-wales/

'Indemnity against leal risk' here means 'crowd fund to cover our salaries'.

Yes - I'm not sure whether the judgement really addressed this point.

I understand what they said about a discrimination claim depending on disadvantage, but did they address the general prohibition on sex discrimination and the limited circumstances when an exception can be made?

I'm getting a bit worried about Jolyon. Is he well? Would it be an idea for him to come off caffeine for Lent?

What on earth is he on about?

'The MHRA's rigorous trial of the efficacy of condoms - placed on the member post-coitus - concluded that their benefits were overstated. The Secretary of State for Health, Wesley Streeting, heralded the trial as exactly the sort of evidence-led medicine for which he had always advocated.'

I wouldn't trade places with him for all the ££££ in the GLP reserves @SionnachRuadh
What he has enabled is still archived on the guardian website

He should come off something for Lent. Social media would be a start.

Then make the defense - it's not that our advice was bad, it's that you chose to take it seriously

I actually agree with him on this one - there’s a first time for everything.

He is saying that testing puberty blockers well into puberty is a waste of time - I assume he is referring to the age limit being 14 or above.

This is why lots of posters think the study is dead.

At 14, there is no reason to block puberty. At that age, HRT is typically started with a full understanding of one's options. The purpose of blockers is/was to allow for exploration in younger trans children until they are of an age to better understand everything. Also, it's not a medically solid idea to have one's puberty blocked from age 8 or 9 until 14.

At 14, there is no reason to block puberty. At that age, HRT is typically started with a full understanding of one's options
14 year olds have no concept of fertility and becoming parents.
It is criminal to give them endocrine disruptors of any sort.