GLP about to waste another load of their money - Round 2 of attacking the ECHR guidance

[Another2Cats]

Very much as the title. I haven't seen another thread on this, but apologies if I missed it.

https://goodlawproject.org/were-supporting-a-legal-challenge-against-the-code-of-practice/

Leigh Day solicitors have sent a letter before action dated 28 July to the ECHR (and also the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government) on behalf of two claimants:

https://goodlawproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Code-of-Practice-PAP-Letter-REDACTED.pdf

The letter gives them 14 days to reply (11th Aug) and state that they will commence proceedings after that date.

It's a very long letter basically saying that organisations can organise services on the basis of gender, in other words anyone who "lives as a woman" is to be included as a woman. And if a woman "lives as a man" then she is to be excluded.

Also some odd argument that this doesn't count as unlawful discrimination because:

"...the relevant comparator in a direct sex discrimination claim for e.g. a cis man who was excluded from a service provided to those who live as woman would be a trans man who was also excluded.

The trans man would be of a different “biological sex” to the claimant, but there would otherwise be no material difference between them as both would be living as men. Under such a policy, both the claimant and the comparator would be excluded and there would be no less favourable treatment of the cis man."

This was the same argument that the Women's Institute raised.

I really don't see this going anywhere but this could be another case to get the popcorn out for and enjoy.

"...and it’s all based on wrongheaded reading of the law"

What action do they think they can take, it's a guidance, you can't take action against a guidance, it's the law that the guide is pertaining to that you have to action against.
I hope the Gender Idiots can tell the difference by now, and won't pay anything into a crowd fund for this useless piece of theatre.

The GLP should be reported to the law regulator for whipping up outrage with false promises to fight impossible legal challenges on nonexistence grounds just to make money.

Please don’t say it’s going on about toilets again.

GLP are tenacious, I'll say that
And some other choice words
Silly bunch

"This was the same argument that the Women's Institute raised"

Yes, there's no logical way of defining 'living as a man/woman' other than sex.

I can't remember if it was you who brought the WI case - I remember cat was in the username - but that poster talked about how they and their husband lived very similar day-to-day lives. They both wore comfortable trousers and t-shirts, jointly maintained the household, did the same hobbies, so what seperated them into man or woman in gender 'living as' terms?

Many transmen use women's toilets and changing rooms (as they are entitled to) and have done for years with no issue. Under the new guidance any exclusion is likely to be very rare, but most transmen will likely carry on as they have done. 'Cis'-men never use women's toilets so the comparison doesn't work.

They seem to be leaning very heavily on the idea that 'separate/different but equal' isn't discrimination, while completely ignoring

1. that lack of single sex provision may be discriminatory.

2. that this policy of judging that somebody can't use a toilet because they are 'living as man' sounds very dodgy. How do you demonstrate that somebody is living as a man? I'd love to hear how they plan to explain this. Does it involve wearing trousers?

I thought that the advice was now that an association could choose to organise around gender identity because of freedom of association, but that they must make this clear in any governing documents - so if the WI wants to become mixed sex they must go through the correct procedure.

However, toilets are services so have tighter rules on discrimination.

No silly, it's being, "buff and burly", and possibly having short hair.

The letter before action doesn't mention toilets at all. The names of the claimants have been redacted.

The letter also mentions Schedule 3 para 30 of the Equality Act, but I don't see how that would help in any way. Para 30 provides that:

30 If a service is generally provided only for persons who share a protected characteristic, a person (A) who normally provides the service for persons who share that characteristic does not contravene section 29(1) or (2)—

(a) by insisting on providing the service in the way A normally provides it, or

(b) if A reasonably thinks it is impracticable to provide the service to persons who do not share that characteristic, by refusing to provide the service.

[Section 29 of the EA is about service providers not discriminating]

The letter then goes on to say:

For an organisation like [redacted] this exception would enable them to operate in a trans-inclusive fashion [huge amount of redacted text].

I presume that this organisation is one of the claimants. From this it does sound as though it is more than just toilets. It sounds as though it might be a charity or other service provider that is currently providing a service that is purportedly for women only but they are currently and wish to remain "trans-inclusive".

.

It was interesting to see that, as well as the ECHR, they also addressed the letter to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (currently Angela Rayner).

I'm not sure what relevance that might or might not have. Perhaps the claimants are involved in some way in this area?

I haven't read the link, but I was responding to this bit in the OP's post which referred to services:

"...the relevant comparator in a direct sex discrimination claim for e.g. a cis man who was excluded from a service provided to those who live as woman would be a trans man who was also excluded.

A trans man is very unlikely to be excluded as very few have changed their appearance so drastically that even after a verbal challenge it wouldn't be clear they were female.

Yes, it seems that organisations can be made up of two separate characteristics.

... because their defence of Jason Arday went so well.

Nincompoops

Women wearing dresses and skirts can enter the ladies. If they are wearing trousers, they also have to wear a cape to enter.

It also helps if your disembodied head hovers above your shoulders.

Pictogram law.

It means consistently pretending to be someone you're not, whilst wearing trousers and having short hair.

@Keeptoiletssafe
Tee hee.

Good news for all the peeps without a neck. They can indeed go anywhere they like

The Supreme Court judgement already lists the correct comparators for cases such as these so I don't know why GLC stubbornly refuses to understand the judgement...well, I do really but it feels like they're firing off Potemkin Village-style legal actions rather than doing practical things to help their ideological bedfellows.

‘Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government’

That will be buildings (toilets!) and links to the Health and Safety Executive.

That would be ‘interesting’ changing all the building regs and legislation.

Single sex housing? But then that would they really chuck out a woman if she started identifying as trans?

GLP about to waste another load of their money

I think you'll find that it's other people's money GLP is wasting. Its founder and staff, and any external lawyers used, will be quids in.

But the basis of their argument is that the trans man must be excluded.

A few tweets from Akua Reindorf KC on Twitter/X:

They’re arguing for something that doesn’t and can’t, in real life, exist: a service that’s only for (1) women who don’t identify as men and (2) men who identify as women and which excludes (3) men who don’t identify as women and (4) women who identify as men.>

<They say the reason group 3 is excluded is not because they’re biological men but because they don’t identify as women. Even if the scenario were practicably possible, at least part of the reason these men are excluded is that they are men. Therefore it’s sex discrimination.>

<They can try to dissemble with ridiculous comparators all they like, but the “reason why” is the ultimate question, and the answer to that is clear. There are many ways of looking at this issue and believe me, when we were doing the Code we looked at all of them.

and also from Barbara Rich in reply (a retired barrister that I follow):

Aren’t they attempting to articulate the arguments which the City of London are running in the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond case as a principle of wider application - so wide that it makes the EHRC guidance positively wrong? That seems rather a bold position to adopt here

As I understand it, CoL accepts a “lived gender” policy isn’t in any way a single-sex service, but the arguments then justifying it as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim seem like quite a long shot, given the abrogation of single-sex justifications that involves

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/2086043229640687785?s=20

I saw this from Akua R:

They’re arguing for something that doesn’t and can’t, in real life, exist: a service that’s only for (1) women who don’t identify as men and (2) men who identify as women and which excludes (3) men who don’t identify as women and (4) women who identify as men.

They say the reason group 3 is excluded is not because they’re biological men but because they don’t identify as women.
Even if the scenario were practicably possible, at least part of the reason these men are excluded is that they are men. Therefore it’s sex discrimination.

They can try to dissemble with ridiculous comparators all they like, but the “reason why” is the ultimate question, and the answer to that is clear.

Edited to say I wrote this as the same time as the post above.

I suspect that this won't go very far, but if it did, I think it might herald a rift between older trans identifying men and younger trans identifying women.

My impression is that 'Inclusive' services for women might also include some men, but they don't tend to exclude women who identify as a different gender. I think it's very 'bold' to suggest that they should.

The Good Laugh Project continues to live up to its nickname.
More fool those who fund the fox-killer's tilts at windmills.

Oh damn it! I'm going to have to get one of those awful neck tattoos that make you look like you have a floating head just so I can use the bogs.

When I first saw this story I was in fact more taken aback (concerned even) that Leigh Day had taken on the case.

Given their reputation on issues such as equal pay, it made me wonder what angle they think it is worth going for.

Not sure if it is a no win, no fee, but as I understand it they may take on good causes, but always have in mind whether it will be financially worth while for them.

Depressing.

They want to exclude trans men so they can organise along gender lines, but it's just not legally or practically feasible, as Akua says.

Yes, I don't think transmen will stop using women's services and organisations as they are safer and welcoming to them. So long as they do it would undermine from within the movement any attempts to establish 'living as' segregation in law.

Hopefully this doesn't go anywhere, but no doubt GLP will drag it out and misrepresent as much as it can.