🧵
1 I’m sure @NadiaWhittomeMP will be correcting the Parliamentary record at her earliest opportunity and withdrawing her statement that the @EHRC interim update went “far beyond even the Supreme Court ruling”. Swift J rejected that argument in R (GLP) v EHRC [2026] ⤵️

https://twitter.com/NadiaWhittomeMP/status/2044806224223330583

2 A few other points:

“The SC had the unenviable job of attempting to interpret the will of Parliament”: this is a metaphor for “the meaning of the statutory words with regard to their context & the purpose of the legislation”, not "what MPs thought when they passed it" ⤵️

🧵

A reminder that:

The SC judgment wasn’t about whether trans people in general should be treated as the opposite sex under the Equality Act

*It was already known that they should not*

/1

https://twitter.com/DrMikeHill/status/2043691570579300854

The judgment was *only* about whether the c.10k trans people with Gender Recognition Certificates should be treated as the opposite sex under the Equality Act

*The Supreme Court decided that they should not*

/2

Here Jolyon says, disgracefully, that “the judiciary can’t be trusted always” and that the judgment in GLP’s judicial review against EHRC is “really ugly”. He tells people not to believe what the media says, because it’s apparently “not quite true” that the Claimants lost.../1

https://twitter.com/LarissaMVLopez/status/2022342323200569487

It is, of course, 100% true. GLP lost on standing, and the other Claimants lost on every substantive ground.

Jolyon also refers to the “fact” that the judge “has agreed with [GLP] about service provision outside the workplace”.../2

The position is this:
Facilities in services (eg changing rooms in leisure centres, public toilets) can be provided on a single-sex basis under Sch 3 §§26-27 of the Equality Act 2010. There are various conditions in Sch 3 that have to be met, including that the service is.../1

https://twitter.com/akuareindorf/status/2021620250383708574

a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The EA doesn’t say that services have to provide single-sex facilities, but it might be direct or indirect discrimination against women to fail to provide them, depending on the facts.../2

I expect the misleading headline and first para of this article to be urgently corrected. Trans people's rights haven't been reduced and I didn't at any time say that they had. I said that trans people have been lied to about what their rights are.

theguardian.com/society/2025/j… The first paragraph has now been slightly changed but the headline remains defamatory

@GreenJennyJones @soniasodha @ForWomenScot @MForstater @carla_denyer 🧵It’s an inevitable consequence of the judgment.

In general an association mustn’t discriminate against a person by depriving them of membership because of a protected characteristic: s.101(1). So eg a reading group can’t say “no disabled people” /1 @GreenJennyJones @soniasodha @ForWomenScot @MForstater @carla_denyer But there’s an exception which says that an association can be limited to people who share a protected characteristic: Sch 16 para 1. Thus an association can be limited to women, disabled people, older people, black people etc /2

There are several concerning legal inaccuracies in this piece by barrister Sam Fowles about yesterday’s landmark #SupremeCourt decision in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers 🧵⬇️
theguardian.com/commentisfree/… 1. The decision does not leave the legal rights of women untouched and nor does it make the legal landscape more complex. Quite the reverse on both counts.

This report is an interesting contribution to the debate on free speech in higher education. There’s quite a lot I disagree with – a few initial thoughts in 🧵⬇️. For more lively debate on this subject don’t forget to sign up for the @officestudents #OfSInsight event next week!

https://twitter.com/Daragh_Murray/status/1600441151441768451

Link here:

https://twitter.com/officestudents/status/1589543482451902471?s=20&t=jQ5BxfGSW0M5Grdy6gJFiA