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
The belief discrimination case of Ricky Garrett v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust has been overturned on appeal.
Mr Garrett was a litigant in person.
The original tribunal found that he had been discriminated against for his belief that "we are all one (human) race" and his non-belief in systemic racism, when, following a complaint about an overheard conversation he was ordered to write an academically referenced written reflection on systemic racism.
This was the original conduct - a discussion with a colleague following workplace promotion of the idea of systemic racism with which Mr Garrett disagreed.
The investigation said his misconduct wasn't about him disagreeing with the theory of systemic racism but the way that he said it.
He was told to write an academically referenced essay to see if his position changed.
Thank you to @louie_french, Shadow Minister for Shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport for coming to the launch of our report Getting Back on Track: using the Equality Act to enable and protect sport for women and girls at the House of Lords this week.
It was such a good event!
@sharrond62 hosted and @wsusportsunion @Womeninsport_uk @SportSEENuk and @WomensRightsNet were in attendance.
Everyone wanted to talk about how the Equality Act works in sport.
The OfS-Sussex judgement is logically flawed and can't be allowed to stand. @ObhishekSaha with a very good analogy about paths.
Sussex's defence was that it had a high level sign saying "this path will only be closed for very good reasons". Therefore it must have had a very good reason 🙄
In order to keep the footpath functionally open the local authority has to apply some rules to the users of the path. It has a duty to keep the path open for cyclists and pedestrians, but not for motorbikes. This is in the bye-laws
(this is the university's equality act compliant equality policy that is part of its governance)
There are some short parts of the path that are so unavoidably narrow that the local authority puts up signs saying "cyclists dismount here" to keep the whole path safe and open for all users.
That is fine, the path is still open to pedestrians and cyclists.
(that's a proportionate means to a legitimate aim in the Equality Act, its "no noisy protests that disrupt exams")
This is quite the exercise in missing the point by Prof Shreya Atrey in Modern Law Review.
FWS will have a severe impact on "transgender, gender fluid, gender non-conforming, polygender, genderqueer and intersex" it says (without defining any of these terms).
Remember, FWS was just about whether a GRC changes a person's sex for the purpose of the Equality Act.
Atrey says the protected characteristic of sex should be amended to include sex characteristics, gender, gender identity, gender expression and gender performance. 🤨
A curious thing about the draft government guidance: It has no conceptual underpinning at all
“In recent years, we have seen a significant increase in the number of children who are questioning the way they feel about being a boy or a girl, including the physical attributes of their sex and the related ways in which they fit into society. “
Er ok…🤷♀️
It then dives into “where a child or their parent has raised a request relating to social transition”
The phrase appears 29 times in the guidance, but is never explained what it means or what it might involve.
The schools are told they must "consider what is in the best interests of the child and other children, and a decision relating to social transition may not be the same as a child’s wishes. "