Nicola Barker
LightNews LightNews
nicolabarker.bsky.social
Nicola Barker
@nicolabarker.bsky.social
140 followers 300 following 10 posts
Academic interested in LGBT+ rights, family law, UK overseas territories, European Convention on Human Rights
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Nicola Barker
reactiveashley.bsky.social
3/ Lol, even a British judge operating under communist rule managed to state the obvious: that trans people use toilets to pee, and that toilets have cubicles. One can only marvel at how the Ladies and Lords failed to do the same.
Para 102, quote, As to the Government’s main justification relying on the claimed need to protect the privacy interests of other bathroom users, Mr Parker submitted that the PCCBR in fact make little if any contribution to user privacy, and actually would be counter-productive: Item 1, The Government’s privacy argument takes as its premise the proposition that K is to be treated as a woman for the purpose of bathroom use based on his biological sex at birth and/or HKID sex marker, but whether he should be treated as a male or female for this purpose is what is in issue. Item 2, The argument ignores the reality of what trans people actually do when they use the bathroom. As K does not possess male genitalia, he does not use urinals, and K uses a cubicle where he can neither see others nor be seen. (The same would be true of a trans woman visiting a female bathroom, which has only cubicles.) Item 3, Hence, given a male appearance, it is difficult to see how other male bathroom users would be affected by K’s mere presence, not least when fully clothed outside the cubicle or shower compartment. Item 4, K’s male appearance would likely cause more consternation if he were forced to use the female toilets, as he would appear to be – and K’s evidence was that he had in fact sometimes been accused of being – in the “wrong” bathroom. Forcing K to use female public conveniences would create an even greater privacy harm both to him and to female bathroom users.
July 23, 2025 at 2:48 PM
nicolabarker.bsky.social
Thanks Loveday!
April 19, 2025 at 11:48 AM
nicolabarker.bsky.social
Thank you! 😀
April 18, 2025 at 12:09 PM
nicolabarker.bsky.social
been used for more immediate outputs, with no guarantee that it would be admissible. For an account of the background to this case see: academic.oup.com/hrlr/article... and there is an account of our legal arguments before the ECtHR in my forthcoming JSWFL article
‘Marry in Haste …’: The (Partial) Abolition of Same-sex Marriage in Bermuda
Abstract. In 2018, the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda revoked the right to marry for same-sex couples. In a judgment that reconceives the relationsh
academic.oup.com
April 18, 2025 at 7:51 AM
nicolabarker.bsky.social
And finally, this is the third consecutive impact prize for Liverpool and that doesn’t happen by accident so I have to thank Marie Fox who nominated me and the previous two winners, and Helen Stalford who as HoD supported me to take a huge risk in spending a lot of time on this case that could have
April 18, 2025 at 7:51 AM