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?

As a friend in PR once pointed out, polishing is clearly impossible but you can roll them in glitter.

What is also wicked is that the oestrogen they are taking could possibly induce precocious puberty. Meaning the child would then need puberty blockers.

I've not heard of this happening, but 2+2 etc, it is a realistic possibility. <speaks confidently with no medical or scientific knowledge whatsoever>

IANAD but that specifically seems unlikely, as are they really taking so much oestrogen that more ends up in the milk than is in actual milk? It still seems like a terrible thing to do for all the other reasons.

Don’t know about via “milk” excretions, but it is an issue with estrogen applied topically:

https://abstracts.eurospe.org/hrp/0097/hrp0097p2-91

Trans-identified father who used topical estrogen managed to induce early puberty in his 3-year-old daughter via daily physical contact.

IANAD but it seems a study says "These findings provide reassurance about the adequacy of nutrition from human milk produced by non-gestational transgender female and nonbinary parents on estrogen-based, gender-affirming hormone therapy, and support the importance of this experience on a personal level."

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08903344231170559

@fanOfBen I agree it's unlikely, but any possibility of harming a child should be avoided.

I doubt they could produce enough milk to make this a real concern, amongst the many other concerns.

There are a lot of concerns all around this subject!

support the importance of this experience 😡

Who is important, not the child, that's for sure.

Has anyone seen this on X?

https://x.com/argosaki/status/2016990657450299837

Amazing.

@Helleofabore, do you happen to have de-bunking evidence for our visitor?

Are people like Jolyon Maugham and MP Kate Osborne going to be held to account for their flagrant misrepresentation of recent rulings?

These misrepresentations have consequneces, especially when those who rely on social media for their news and their perception of reality take their words as fact.

No.

People can go on a public forum and say whatever nonsense they like, as long as it's not "hate speech", libel etc. It's a fundamental freedom we all have.

I thought I'd read that a group of lawyers and academics had got together and written a letter which addressed the flagrant misrepresentation of the ruling by these people? They do need to be held to account. They are both are in positions of influence and responsibility

Quantity was far from adequate. Testing consisted only of protein/fat/carbohydrate levels - not vitamins, minerals, hormones, drug residues - and found only that they were higher than in 'normal' breastmilk (higher is not necessarily better). No testing of whether they varied according to the baby's requirements as normal milk does. And if it's the one I'm thinking of the researchers never actually tested - or even saw - the baby. All reports of weight and growth were submitted by the parent.

IIR, they didn’t see the “milk” being produced either - it was brought in, ready, er-…milked.

I think the preliminary question, which may be overly legalistic, is to ask is to whom do they owe a duty of accuracy? In general advice is worth what you pay for it. If anyone reads stuff on the Internet and believes it, and it turns out to be a pack of lies, more fool you. You don't have or deserve redress.

I believe you have to let people be "wrong".

Or perhaps better put by saying the penalty for flagrant misrepresentation of the law is to have a group of academics publish a letter saying you're flagrantly misrepresenting the law.

Yep. Quantity and source were also based on self-report.

All we know for certain is that somebody (possibly human, possibly not; possibly the human in question, possibly not) produced some sort of milk and put it in a test tube.

Yeah, the problem being that, since Jolyon isn't regulated by either the Bar Standards Board or the Charity Commission, he doesn't really have a duty to anyone. And GLP donors only have themselves to blame for not reading the small print.

A cynic might - quite wrongly, I'm sure - think that he set it up that way deliberately.

The MPs are certainly subject to the Nolan Principles of Public Life, as are many others including those who work in the courts:

"The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to all those in other sectors delivering public services. The custodians of the Principles of Public Life are the Ethics and Integrity Commission."

Looks like a report to the Ethics and Integrity Commission would be something to consider. I have no idea if there would be consequences, but they are breaching almost every one of the seven.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2

If anyone reads stuff on the Internet and believes it, and it turns out to be a pack of lies, more fool you. You don't have or deserve redress.

It's even written in law Ignorantia juris non excusat

My legal ken is out of date, so don't take my word for it on consumer rights and tort, but it seems to me that the GLP donor who says "I assumed from Jolyon's posts on Bluesky that he had a worked out litigation strategy with a solid chance of success" is in roughly the same position as the man who says "this guy on YouTube said he could make my johnson bigger and he seemed legit".

And GLP donors only have themselves to blame for not reading the small print.

And also not drawing any conclusions from the GLP's decision to avoid external regulation.

He's found a legal bod who agrees with his interpretation of last week's loss! The blog he links to doesn't have the author's name on it but I wonder if it was written by this ex employee of the GLP? He's so hilariously transparent, that letter by Michael Foran et al must have really annoyed him.

The argument now seems to come down to a distinction between "right" and "not necessarily wrong".

• This finding was contrary to the EHRC’s interim update, which said that allowing trans women to use a women’s toilet meant that (cis) men would also be allowed to use it – but the Court held that the EHRC’s analysis was not “necessarily” wrong in all cases, and so its approach did not give rise to legal error.

In any event, if trans identifying men are permitted by a service provider to use a women's toilet then it's no longer single sex. To the extent that failure to provide single-sex toilets for women may be indirect discrimination, the women+trans-women is no longer helpful for a service provider, regardless of whoever else is or isn't permitted to use it. So I'm not sure any distinction between "right" and "not wrong" is very useful.

https://bateswells.co.uk/updates/case-update-good-law-project-limited-ors-v-ehrc/

The child as mere prop in male fantasy role-play. 🙄The parents should both be ashamed of themselves.

Helen Fry is not just any legal bod. Helen Fry is a TRA.