Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Thread gallery
35
Rainingrain · 16/02/2026 12:24

MyAmpleSheep · 16/02/2026 12:18

Less than 50% is fine. In any case at least one side has a case at 50% or less.

How does an experienced barrister describe prospects that are remote, moonshot unlikely, or simply fanciful?

Those are the bits of paper they need to see.

Both sides could assess their own chances as over 50% though.

SirChenjins · 16/02/2026 12:24

DownhillTeaTray · 16/02/2026 09:33

I see that the GLP are out-and-out lying on their crowdfunder page 🙄

On one side, the judge has said we are right about the law in a central part of our case: it can be entirely lawful for service providers to allow trans women to use the women’s toilets – without having to admit cis men. This means that the minister will have to send back the EHRC’s draft guidance to be rewritten. It’s good news.

Yes Jolyon, if you selectively quote a judgement to miss out the important bit that you don't like, and which completely undermines your lie, you can indeed self-identify a loss as a win!

I'm going to hold my hands up and confess that I'm still not quite clear - what's false about that claim from Foxy?

Keeptoiletssafe · 16/02/2026 12:36

ElizabethFryIsSpinning · 16/02/2026 11:16

@Keeptoiletssafe do you have a fact sheet ? A relative is high up in a housing association and is going to go on a building regs course I'd like to send it to him, I've already told him the issue of floor to ceiling doors being unsafe as per your previous posts but a list of FAQs might be handy

Ah thank you. Housing Associations may be classed as domestic? My research is non-domestic ie anything outside the home. However, there are crossovers particularly with vulnerable people with medical conditions. I would always advise you should be able to get into a toilet quickly and for extra safety for known vulnerabilities be able to take off the door take a pin out the hinge so anyone collapsed against the door can be removed promptly. For deaf people there should ideally be a visual as well as audible fire alarm in the bathroom/toilet room.

Probably questions for health and safety in non domestic toilets are like similar ones I gave to the Department of Education. Their guidance suggests that all secondary school toilets are built for privacy (only a 5mm floor to door gap).

I compiled this list after various email exchanges so it probably makes more sense why I am being so specific when you had read discussions I had with them about incidents in schools. But you should get the gist.

This is the foi I sent:
Assessments for the standard door gaps being 5mm in secondary school toilet cubicles.

For secondary schools, the DfE now states a floor to ceiling toilet cubicle system shall be used for increased pupil privacy with a maximum gap of 5mm between the finished floor level and the bottom of the door and between the top of the door and the ceiling. This is the DfE standard to be adhered to unless stated otherwise as a specific requirement within the School Specific Brief.

I would like to make a freedom of information request for the equality impact assessments of 5mm door gaps in secondary school toilet cubicles for:

A) Pupils with diagnosed or undiagnosed disabilities and medical conditions: epilepsy, diabetes, heart conditions, POTS, and acquired brain injuries. In particular, given that a lack of oxygen can start damaging the brain within four minutes, the effect of rescue times and keeping these vulnerable pupils safe.

B) Female pupils, due to the higher sex-related crime incidences of sexual assaults and rape in schools. Serious assaults typically take place in private.

Similarly, I would like to request the risk assessments for 5mm door gaps in secondary school toilet cubicles for:

C) Pupils who are having medical emergencies such as strokes, mental health crises or seizures due to drug spikings or illness.

D) Emergency building evacuation times and rescue times.

E) Sanitation inside cubicles, in terms of disease spread, reduced ventilation and ability to wash floors and walls down thoroughly.

F) Crimes, such as drug dealing and drug taking.

This is the response I got: I have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Following a search of the Department’s paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you requested is not held by this Department.

I chased it up, but came to a dead end. No one could give me risk assessments or equality impact assessments. They did say, in several emails, it’s guidance and it’s not their responsibility if something goes wrong as schools have to abide by 1974 legislation and disability regs and KCSIE etc.

There’s a trend for modern school toilet blocks to have enclosed mixed sex toilet cubicles then shared sinks all in an open communal space (no outer door). This pushes misuse into private, mixed sex cubicles. This is also the design commonly favoured by transactivist designers. Schools are therefore a good example of where ‘inclusive’ design all goes wrong.

Door gaps in non-domestic toilets are known to be advantageous for supervision, prevention of misuse, ventilation and cleaning. In a mixed sex environment you can’t have these health and safety benefits because of privacy concerns.

Basically we don’t want more private enclosed toilets in public spaces. They don’t work. The ones we have already (accessible) are misused. We need to keep those under so much supervision and care. They have alarms etc to mitigate problems but never as good as a simple door gap for preventing misuse.

Jolyon’s crusade will only lead to more mixed sex, private toilets. There is no other possible conclusion. That’s worse for the health and safety of everyone but mostly for anyone who is medically vulnerable, women and children.

Let me know how he gets on. It’s very detailed, complicated and rules change from country to country within the U.K. But hey, Jolyon seems to want to rip it all up.

I don’t like linking to real life examples much. But with a quick google you should be able to find lots of incidents in toilets. Getting trapped is very common in domestic as well as non-domestic.

FranticFrankie · 16/02/2026 12:38

Does JM ever mention trans-men? He appears to be quite biased towards TW
I agree that JM would be better to focus his efforts on advocacy and perhaps leave all the fighting to people who are better at it
Or is it that he can't win? Is he fighting on, for kudos? It's unfair to give so many vulnerable people so much hope. And the funds contnue to come in

He reminds me of my eldest when he was little - whenever I said 'no' he would give me a hundred reasons, all argued strenuously why I should cave- ' but mum....'
(was still 'no')

FranticFrankie · 16/02/2026 12:40

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/02/2026 11:03

What an enormous wanker he is.

Don't hold back @Ereshkigalangcleg 😁😁

FranticFrankie · 16/02/2026 12:43

Yes @Keeptoiletssafe - I think I've mentioned a "toilet rescue" that I was involved in and was so glad it wasn't a floor-to-ceiling door. It would have delayed things and who knows; could have had a very different outcome

Keeptoiletssafe · 16/02/2026 12:45

‘On one side, the judge has said we are right about the law in a central part of our case: it can be entirely lawful for service providers to allow trans women to use the women’s toilets – without having to admit cis men. This means that the minister will have to send back the EHRC’s draft guidance to be rewritten. It’s good news’.

Even if he were right, he forgets Building Legislation. That also applies to services. It’s bad news there. Changing a single sex cubicles into a mixed sex room takes a lot of work and money.

DownhillTeaTray · 16/02/2026 12:45

SirChenjins · 16/02/2026 12:24

I'm going to hold my hands up and confess that I'm still not quite clear - what's false about that claim from Foxy?

All of that paragraph is false.

ETA: Here is Michael Foran explaining it:

https://knowingius.org/p/disinformation-and-the-good-law-project

Wackdemmoles · 16/02/2026 12:49

nicepotoftea · 16/02/2026 09:40

This is the thing that seems fraudulent.

(ETA: to me)

Edited

Even the usually diplomatic M Foran doubted the incompetence defence yesterday

MyAmpleSheep · 16/02/2026 12:53

Wackdemmoles · 16/02/2026 12:49

Even the usually diplomatic M Foran doubted the incompetence defence yesterday

Maybe JM didn’t have a role in creating the webpage. Maybe the incompetence on his part is failure to oversee, and another person (perhaps Crash Wiggly?) of lesser legal stature incompetently interpreted the ruling.

You can make incompetence fit, just.

(Ok, no you can’t. I tried though.)

DownhillTeaTray · 16/02/2026 12:53

Wackdemmoles · 16/02/2026 12:49

Even the usually diplomatic M Foran doubted the incompetence defence yesterday

I don't think he's being "diplomatic", as such, he's just making sure that Jolyon/GLP can't come at him for libel. Because even though they would lose, it would be a massive arseache.

See Sarah Philmore.

Wackdemmoles · 16/02/2026 12:55

DownhillTeaTray · 16/02/2026 12:53

I don't think he's being "diplomatic", as such, he's just making sure that Jolyon/GLP can't come at him for libel. Because even though they would lose, it would be a massive arseache.

See Sarah Philmore.

Yes indeed, he started to worry me on Sunday as I thought he was getting less cautious. I think he's furious about the incessant misrepresentation of the law

Lilyfreedom · 16/02/2026 12:57

MyAmpleSheep · 16/02/2026 12:18

Less than 50% is fine. In any case at least one side has a case at 50% or less.

How does an experienced barrister describe prospects that are remote, moonshot unlikely, or simply fanciful?

Those are the bits of paper they need to see.

Generally, 50% is the standard we use - are you more likely than not to win. It is perfectly possible (and indeed, often very likely) that both sides have advice to that effect in a trial. Insurers are often require an advice stating that prospects are over 51% to fund a claim (for either side).

The use of percentages is inevitably artificial and subjective. I would not expect the GLP to be using my money (were I a donor) to any cause where they could not get a barrister to tell them they had prospects of 51% or above. That is just bad litigation strategy.

DownhillTeaTray · 16/02/2026 12:57

Wackdemmoles · 16/02/2026 12:55

Yes indeed, he started to worry me on Sunday as I thought he was getting less cautious. I think he's furious about the incessant misrepresentation of the law

See, here he can state documented facts. Not opinion. He can list what the GLP have stated, agains the actual judgement. So he probably feels a bit safer.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 16/02/2026 13:04

MyAmpleSheep · 16/02/2026 12:53

Maybe JM didn’t have a role in creating the webpage. Maybe the incompetence on his part is failure to oversee, and another person (perhaps Crash Wiggly?) of lesser legal stature incompetently interpreted the ruling.

You can make incompetence fit, just.

(Ok, no you can’t. I tried though.)

My bets are on Jess O’Thomson having a hand in the misinterpretation.

PrettyDamnCosmic · 16/02/2026 13:11

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 16/02/2026 13:04

My bets are on Jess O’Thomson having a hand in the misinterpretation.

Jess O’Thomson is not a lawyer. He is a man who thinks he is a woman with an obvious personal interest in inserting men into women's spaces.

Wackdemmoles · 16/02/2026 13:18

The legal analysis by GLP is as accurate and shares many techniques with Kemp's judgment in Peggie. Wouldn't be surprised if the source is the same, human or otherwise

MyAmpleSheep · 16/02/2026 13:51

Lilyfreedom · 16/02/2026 12:57

Generally, 50% is the standard we use - are you more likely than not to win. It is perfectly possible (and indeed, often very likely) that both sides have advice to that effect in a trial. Insurers are often require an advice stating that prospects are over 51% to fund a claim (for either side).

The use of percentages is inevitably artificial and subjective. I would not expect the GLP to be using my money (were I a donor) to any cause where they could not get a barrister to tell them they had prospects of 51% or above. That is just bad litigation strategy.

I would not expect the GLP to be using my money (were I a donor) to any cause where they could not get a barrister to tell them they had prospects of 51% or above. That is just bad litigation strategy.

I don’t agree. Where the potential reward is great it’s worth taking a risk. People buy lottery tickets all the time. It’s not exactly the same - there’s some downside to losing a legal case - but it’s not entirely different, either.

KitWyn · 16/02/2026 13:52

SirChenjins · 16/02/2026 12:24

I'm going to hold my hands up and confess that I'm still not quite clear - what's false about that claim from Foxy?

Because this ISN'T what the judgment said. My bolding of the last sentence.

"61. Whether different treatment is also less favourable treatment is, therefore, a qualitative question. In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. However, the circumstances of the case would be decisive.

(For the purposes of the EA 2010 the lavatory would be mixed-sex, but for the purposes of the Claimants’ submission in this case it would still be labelled “women”.)"

What the Judge is saying is:

Excluding other men, but not trans women, from a women-only space, (e.g. women's toilets or the Women's Institute) is NOT necessarily unfair treatment for the 'other men'. Providing facilities of equal 'value', are readily available.

(I'd argue but what if I'm a teeny tiny gay pacifist who has experienced male violence. Those other places still have the scary men in them. Why does the TW get a pass and not this man? So the 'not necessarily' just means it's not a slam dunk of an argument.)

All the other arguments, including just one trans women being there turns it from being women-only into a mixed-sex space, remain valid. One tiny peanut makes a vat of chocolate no longer nut-free.

Hence the bolded sentence from the judgment. And hence why all men, including trans women, must stay out of all women-only spaces.

ProfessorBinturong · 16/02/2026 13:55

SirChenjins · 16/02/2026 12:24

I'm going to hold my hands up and confess that I'm still not quite clear - what's false about that claim from Foxy?

the judge has said we are right about the law in a central part of our case:

He didn't.

it can be entirely lawful for service providers to allow trans women to use the women’s toilets – without having to admit cis men.

He didn't say this either. He said in certain very specific circumstances it might be possible to make (but not necessarily win) the argument that this would not be direct discrimination against non-trans men. It would, however, still be discrimination against women and potentially (again, depending on circumstances) in breach of assorted other legislation or regulations.

This means that the minister will have to send back the EHRC’s draft guidance to be rewritten.

Because he didn't say the first bit, this is nonsense.

MinervaBoudicca · 16/02/2026 14:04

Oh dear. Yet more misinformation
🙃

MarieDeGournay · 16/02/2026 14:13

ProfessorBinturong · 16/02/2026 13:55

the judge has said we are right about the law in a central part of our case:

He didn't.

it can be entirely lawful for service providers to allow trans women to use the women’s toilets – without having to admit cis men.

He didn't say this either. He said in certain very specific circumstances it might be possible to make (but not necessarily win) the argument that this would not be direct discrimination against non-trans men. It would, however, still be discrimination against women and potentially (again, depending on circumstances) in breach of assorted other legislation or regulations.

This means that the minister will have to send back the EHRC’s draft guidance to be rewritten.

Because he didn't say the first bit, this is nonsense.

Indeed, it's daft to give money to somebody who either didn't read, or didn't understand the judge saying

5 One clear consequence of the conclusion reached in For Women Scotland was that if, for example, a service provider provided a service to be used both by women and transsexual women, that service would not be a single-sex service.

30 for the purposes of sex discrimination under the EA 2010, all persons with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment continue to be considered by reference to their biological sex.

37 It is clear from this that the objective of regulation 20 is that men and women should use conveniences in separate rooms, not together in the same room.

45. It was suggested that it was material that the 1992 Workplace Regulations were made in exercise of powers in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and were not legislation “about discrimination”. I do not attach any significance to this point. The Regulations are to be construed on their own terms...
Given the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland on the meaning of “woman” and “man” in the EA 2010, any contrary reading of the same words in the 1992 Workplace Regulations would make the application of paragraph 2 of schedule 22 to the EA 2010 certainly less coherent, and likely impossible.

etc. etc.

MyAmpleSheep · 16/02/2026 14:13

KitWyn · 16/02/2026 13:52

Because this ISN'T what the judgment said. My bolding of the last sentence.

"61. Whether different treatment is also less favourable treatment is, therefore, a qualitative question. In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. However, the circumstances of the case would be decisive.

(For the purposes of the EA 2010 the lavatory would be mixed-sex, but for the purposes of the Claimants’ submission in this case it would still be labelled “women”.)"

What the Judge is saying is:

Excluding other men, but not trans women, from a women-only space, (e.g. women's toilets or the Women's Institute) is NOT necessarily unfair treatment for the 'other men'. Providing facilities of equal 'value', are readily available.

(I'd argue but what if I'm a teeny tiny gay pacifist who has experienced male violence. Those other places still have the scary men in them. Why does the TW get a pass and not this man? So the 'not necessarily' just means it's not a slam dunk of an argument.)

All the other arguments, including just one trans women being there turns it from being women-only into a mixed-sex space, remain valid. One tiny peanut makes a vat of chocolate no longer nut-free.

Hence the bolded sentence from the judgment. And hence why all men, including trans women, must stay out of all women-only spaces.

What the Judge is saying is:
Excluding other men, but not trans women, from a women-only space, (e.g. women's toilets or the Women's Institute) is NOT necessarily unfair treatment for the 'other men'. Providing facilities of equal 'value', are readily available.

sorry, but no. He didn’t even say that. He was talking specifically and only about “lavatories”.

he didn’t say a man who is excluded from the WI isn’t going to make a good case for unlawful discrimination. Only lavatories.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 16/02/2026 14:16

PrettyDamnCosmic · 16/02/2026 13:11

Jess O’Thomson is not a lawyer. He is a man who thinks he is a woman with an obvious personal interest in inserting men into women's spaces.

He claims to be the trans lead at GLP. He’s a “legal researcher”.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/02/2026 14:19

PrettyDamnCosmic · 16/02/2026 13:11

Jess O’Thomson is not a lawyer. He is a man who thinks he is a woman with an obvious personal interest in inserting men into women's spaces.

Isn’t Jess a “non binary” young woman? I’ve heard Jess speak and I assumed this, judging by the voice. Recent law graduate I think, wildly overhyped as a legal expert.