I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about trade unions and this topic and whether they aren’t living up to their role on this matter? I definitely feel my workplace (large charity) is a hostile environment for people with gender critical views and I’m unconvinced my union would be much better.
What is the state of the employment tribunal process in the UK? We have 3 similar tribunals and produced 3 different results, with 2 going to appeal. Is legislation being applied evenly across ETs?
Thank you Michael, I was hoping you'd have time to comment on the Darlington judgment too.
Question: IIRC the Darlington judgment found that the employer had harassed the nurses by allowing Rose to use the female changing room while finding that Rose personally had not harassed them by doing so. A similar finding was made in Peggie, which found against NHS Fife but not against Beth on harassment. How unusual is this and is it a serious flaw in both judgments? Is it a valid defence for the trans employee that their employer gave permission and they merely acted in accordance with this?
This would be my question, too. It seems to me that these men bear no personal responsibility for what they do, yet others are held liable under strict liability for offences which they might not have been aware of at the time. Surely, no one in sound mind could say that he did not know that there is, at the very least, controversy over the legislation surrounding this because of the huge publicity involved. Where does corporate liability end and personal liability take over? Also, where does the legal duty of care come into corporate responsibility? I have not heard it even mentioned at all.
Yes, I did read that, and I don't want to flog a dead horse. My point is that 'trans' people appear to have to bear no responsibility for the harm and alarm they cause to others. I'm not expecting all 'trans' identified people to be completely au fait with the law, but, as I stated, some crimes are strict liability even though no knowledge of the law exists and can be proved.
Yet, where 'trans' identified people are concerned, they appear to be immune from liability and the 'reasonable person' definition is not applied. If not, they are either protected way beyond others or they are allowed to break the law with impunity.
If the law is seen to not be applying to them as individuals, they must be receiving a form of legal leniency that is not open to any other human being. It is illegal to be a voyeur and to be a flasher. It is illegal to access female spaces and always was, and the UKSC ruling simply clarified that. Do you see what I am saying? If this is not highlighted, we have a two-tier justice system.
Really looking forward to listening to this on Sunday.
My question is around the article 8 Human Rights Act. Many Trans groups appear to believe this gives them unfettered access to the opposite sexes facilities and services. It doesn’t seem to understand the importance of others rights and the conflict of allowing one group a hierarchy over sex based provisions. Or am I missing something here?
Please can you explain in layman's terms Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act that makes it a criminal offence for a person who has acquired "protected information" in an official capacity to disclose this information, including "gender history". Please comment on whether this prohibition creates any obstacles in terms of enforcing single sex spaces in employment/higher education settings and/or any obstacles to the collection of correct data on employee/student sex in employment/higher education.
Particularly interested in your views around Sandy's chances at the EAT. What will be the main areas that will be argued by her team and do you think the made-up quotes will feature in their submissions?
(Also - if there is any time left and we are allowed a bonus off-topic question, I would really love to know, very briefly, whether you think City of London will try to continue with their unlawful 'trans-inclusive' policy and whether you agreed with the High Court's recent decision? Appreciate this is off-topic, though, and you may wish to leave this for another time).
The Sandie Peggie judge ruled that Upton's presence in the changing room only became unlawful when Sandie complained. Given the power imbalance in an employment setting, that just feels wholly wrong. Many wouldn't complain because of job insecurity. Is there any case law or legal principle that either undermines or supports the notion that lawfulness can be affected by whether or not a 'weaker' party speaks up? Thank you. Tim Miller
Hello Michael, would you be able to comment on para 61 of the GLP v EHRC judgement please ? What does it actually mean within the argumentation of the judgement ? The GLP and some MPs, most notably Kate Osborne, are using this paragraph to assert that the law clearly allows transwomen into women’s toilets for customers and service users. This misinformation is already running wild. Thx.
Sorry another question from me: what is the impact of the glp Vs ehrc judgement on other cases in progress e.g. Scottishinisters, Sandie Peggie appeal etc as well as potentially on the corporation of London's proposed options for the ponds at Hampstead heath?
Hi Michael. Following the judgement on glp Vs ehrc please can you explain the differences between Sex matters interpretation of the judgement (guidance lawful) Vs GLP who are claiming that it found toilets in services don't need to be single sex?
Comparing the Darlington and Fife judgments, a notable difference is the treatment of whether/when a trans-identified male may be granted admission to a female single-sex space. Is the Darlington judgment entirely consistent with the Supreme Court's judgment in For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers (2025), while the Fife judgment is not?
Also: in A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France (2017) and subsequent judgments, the ECtHR held that making legal gender recognition conditional on medical/surgical treatment which may result in sterility violates Article 8. Given this, would the approach adopted in the Fife judgment whereby an employer is to conduct a case-by-case assessment taking account of various factors, including the trans employee's stage of medical/surgical treatment, be similarly unlawful under Article 8?
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about trade unions and this topic and whether they aren’t living up to their role on this matter? I definitely feel my workplace (large charity) is a hostile environment for people with gender critical views and I’m unconvinced my union would be much better.
What is the state of the employment tribunal process in the UK? We have 3 similar tribunals and produced 3 different results, with 2 going to appeal. Is legislation being applied evenly across ETs?
Thank you Michael, I was hoping you'd have time to comment on the Darlington judgment too.
Question: IIRC the Darlington judgment found that the employer had harassed the nurses by allowing Rose to use the female changing room while finding that Rose personally had not harassed them by doing so. A similar finding was made in Peggie, which found against NHS Fife but not against Beth on harassment. How unusual is this and is it a serious flaw in both judgments? Is it a valid defence for the trans employee that their employer gave permission and they merely acted in accordance with this?
This would be my question, too. It seems to me that these men bear no personal responsibility for what they do, yet others are held liable under strict liability for offences which they might not have been aware of at the time. Surely, no one in sound mind could say that he did not know that there is, at the very least, controversy over the legislation surrounding this because of the huge publicity involved. Where does corporate liability end and personal liability take over? Also, where does the legal duty of care come into corporate responsibility? I have not heard it even mentioned at all.
On a previous live Michael said that he was very surprised that the employer was guilty but the employee wasn’t
Yes, I did read that, and I don't want to flog a dead horse. My point is that 'trans' people appear to have to bear no responsibility for the harm and alarm they cause to others. I'm not expecting all 'trans' identified people to be completely au fait with the law, but, as I stated, some crimes are strict liability even though no knowledge of the law exists and can be proved.
Yet, where 'trans' identified people are concerned, they appear to be immune from liability and the 'reasonable person' definition is not applied. If not, they are either protected way beyond others or they are allowed to break the law with impunity.
If the law is seen to not be applying to them as individuals, they must be receiving a form of legal leniency that is not open to any other human being. It is illegal to be a voyeur and to be a flasher. It is illegal to access female spaces and always was, and the UKSC ruling simply clarified that. Do you see what I am saying? If this is not highlighted, we have a two-tier justice system.
I agree. Perhaps the appeals will reach a different decision regarding individual guilt.
Hi Michael. It would be great if you could also reference how the Kelly v Leonardo case fits in with the Peggie and Darlington Nurses cases.
Particularly in light of the Swift judgment on the GLP vs EHRC case.
Hi,
Really looking forward to listening to this on Sunday.
My question is around the article 8 Human Rights Act. Many Trans groups appear to believe this gives them unfettered access to the opposite sexes facilities and services. It doesn’t seem to understand the importance of others rights and the conflict of allowing one group a hierarchy over sex based provisions. Or am I missing something here?
Hi Michael
Look forward to this if I can make it.
My question is:
If a future government wanted to remove 'gender reassignment' as a protected characterisitc what are the practicalities of doing that?
Thanks
Dusty
Please can you explain in layman's terms Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act that makes it a criminal offence for a person who has acquired "protected information" in an official capacity to disclose this information, including "gender history". Please comment on whether this prohibition creates any obstacles in terms of enforcing single sex spaces in employment/higher education settings and/or any obstacles to the collection of correct data on employee/student sex in employment/higher education.
Might be useful to consider if Beth and Rose had GRCs, how the Peggie and Darlington cases might have differed
Oh brilliant! Can't wait.
Particularly interested in your views around Sandy's chances at the EAT. What will be the main areas that will be argued by her team and do you think the made-up quotes will feature in their submissions?
(Also - if there is any time left and we are allowed a bonus off-topic question, I would really love to know, very briefly, whether you think City of London will try to continue with their unlawful 'trans-inclusive' policy and whether you agreed with the High Court's recent decision? Appreciate this is off-topic, though, and you may wish to leave this for another time).
The Sandie Peggie judge ruled that Upton's presence in the changing room only became unlawful when Sandie complained. Given the power imbalance in an employment setting, that just feels wholly wrong. Many wouldn't complain because of job insecurity. Is there any case law or legal principle that either undermines or supports the notion that lawfulness can be affected by whether or not a 'weaker' party speaks up? Thank you. Tim Miller
Hello Michael, would you be able to comment on para 61 of the GLP v EHRC judgement please ? What does it actually mean within the argumentation of the judgement ? The GLP and some MPs, most notably Kate Osborne, are using this paragraph to assert that the law clearly allows transwomen into women’s toilets for customers and service users. This misinformation is already running wild. Thx.
Sorry another question from me: what is the impact of the glp Vs ehrc judgement on other cases in progress e.g. Scottishinisters, Sandie Peggie appeal etc as well as potentially on the corporation of London's proposed options for the ponds at Hampstead heath?
Hi Michael. Following the judgement on glp Vs ehrc please can you explain the differences between Sex matters interpretation of the judgement (guidance lawful) Vs GLP who are claiming that it found toilets in services don't need to be single sex?
Any comment on the GLP case and how this might affect appeals?
Can you do a close reading of para 99 of the GLP vs EHRC judgement? Is the judge’s analysis good in terms of Art 8? Is “trans inclusive” an option in practical terms looking beyond Art 8? https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/good-law-project-EHRC-AC-2025-1953-judgment-13Feb26.pdf
(Related to para 61 also)
What is the impact of the Good Law Project judicial review that's just come out? Presumably it makes Peggie much easier to win on appeal?
Comparing the Darlington and Fife judgments, a notable difference is the treatment of whether/when a trans-identified male may be granted admission to a female single-sex space. Is the Darlington judgment entirely consistent with the Supreme Court's judgment in For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers (2025), while the Fife judgment is not?
Also: in A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France (2017) and subsequent judgments, the ECtHR held that making legal gender recognition conditional on medical/surgical treatment which may result in sterility violates Article 8. Given this, would the approach adopted in the Fife judgment whereby an employer is to conduct a case-by-case assessment taking account of various factors, including the trans employee's stage of medical/surgical treatment, be similarly unlawful under Article 8?