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 have seen quite a lot of this question going around.
Its called the "transman gotcha" and it is addressed in the Supreme Court judgment.
It goes like this: If you exclude "trans women" from women's spaces then you must include burly, bearded "trans men"
The answer in the judgment is that the Equality Act exceptions mean that both sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination prohibitions are disapplied so a service provider can lawfully exclude both ways.
There will be much talk of the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act over the next few days.
These are the exceptions that allow service providers to offer services that are only open to one sex or the other (found at Schedule 3 Part 7 of the Act). (1/7)
Without these provisions service providers would be committing sex discrimination by excluding men or women.
Service providers don’t need to “use these exceptions” to exclude people, they just provide the service in the normal way. If they were to get sued they (or a lawyer) can point to the exceptions to show the service is lawful. (2/7)
The exceptions disapply both the prohibitions against sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination.
Again service providers don’t have to “use the exceptions” to exclude someone based on a particular protected characteristic. (3/7)
The CEO of @AdvanceHE has written to university vice chancellors acknowledging that "certain policy statements" cited in the @officestudents decision on @SussexUni "originated in part from" their template.
The parts in yellow came word-for-word from the Equality Challenge Unit/ Advance HE template....
i.e. almost all of it.
... this policy was influential and contributed to the culture of declaring everything "transphobia" and of hounding and not protecting those accused of it.
The ONS have new guidance out on their gender identity data from the census....
They say that you can take it from them with "high confidence" that around 1 in 200 people have a "gender identity different from their sex at birth" 🤨
So who is "Mr X" the trans identifying man held in high security male prison after multiple convictions for luring boys into sex acts while pretending to be a teenage girl on social media?
Could it be former children’s holiday camp manager Cameron Osman who engaged more than 70 teenage boys in sexualised chat pretending to be a 16-year-old girl “Lizzie lemon”.