It throws open the doors of women's changing areas and toilets to male colleagues who wish to use them if they feel more comfortable.
They don't have to identify as women, or be undergoing any medical treatment. Just declaring themselves non-binary would be enough.
It tells law firms to pledge to "exceed" the Equality Act 2010 & Gender Recognition Act.
No mention of checking whether this might undermine their adherence to the law on sex discrimination, disability discrimination, race and religious discrimination, or sexual harassment.
If a female lawyer complains that she feels uncomfortable undressing with, or having enforced girly bathroom chats with, or being called "cis" by her male colleague ... well that might be harassment.
Any chance of a female only meeting or group to discuss policies is off.
Woe betide anyone who succumbs to "cisnormativity" (i.e. recognising that sex is real, binary, immutable and that sex matters)
They say this will help firms meet the @sra_solicitors code on equality, diversity & inclusion.
This policy puts the decision of a man to wear a dress to work feel comfortable in the women's toilets over the privacy, dignity and freedom of belief of every body else.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I gave evidence in the Sandie Peggie case because the hospital board & male Dr refused to accept as findings of fact that that men are more likely to commit violent & sexual crimes, that men are more dangerous to women, so women are more heavily impacted by men in their spaces than vice versa.
You can read my witness statement here.
These are the facts it attests to.
You don't need a degree of any sort to understand these facts.
I've written to @stonewalluk CEO Simon Blake applauding his leadership in discarding Stonewall's previous extreme and divisive definition of "transphobia".
And explaining the damage that it did.
It's not good enough to quietly back away from it after doubling down for so long
It said that Stonewall's guidance was in line with the Equality Act 🤨
The government's @oeogovuk has recently admitted it is a clear misinterpretation of the law to suggest that the Equality Act requires allowing people to access opposite sex facilities because they have the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" gov.uk/government/pub…
15 months after calling me in for questioning about a tweet, and having sat on the CPS decision that there was no crime for 2 months, the Met bothered to call me up at 7pm this evening to tell me, and then put out this press statement. 🙄
#TheProcessIsThePunishment
Here is the tweet over which they wasted their time, my time, my lawyers time and taxpayers' money.
Minister for Women & Equalities says "We are proud of the EqAct & the rights & protections it affords women. The Govt does not plan to amend legal definitions in the act.”
Hundreds of women are going to Parliament on Wednesday to ask the govt to rethink.
It took 22 more years before 1919 the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act was passed permitting women to become join professions and to become lawyers and civil servants and to sit on juries.