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
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. "
The phrase “gender identity” appears 36 times in the judgment
Leonardo’s policy is that any member of staff who is proposing to to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process for the purposes of reassigning their gender can use the toilets intended for the opposite sex.
I am hugely grateful to Naomi Cunningham for the work that she has done as the first chair of Sex Matters, and for her equally important role as a barrister representing claimants using the law to fight for justice.
The arguments made on behalf of the Women and Equalities Minister yesterday were a desperate attempt to shoehorn "case-by-case" back into the single sex services following the Supreme Court judgment.
At paragraph 36 she says there are there are no equivalent exceptions to the single sex service exceptions that apply to employers.
She seems to have forgotten the provisions about protection of women in Schedule 22!
She said that the FWS case was principally decided by reference to maternity rights.
It wasn't. The SC concluded "it important that the EA is interpreted in a clear & consistent way so that groups which share a PC can be identified by those on whom the Act imposes obligations so that they can perform those obligations in a practical way"
Ollie was Chair of the Civil Service Rainbow Alliance for 9 years from 2008 -2017, then held a number of roles in the GEO.
So all the time that the government was getting the law wrong and getting Stonewall prizes for he was leading this.
In 2012 he wrote in Civil Service World about his personal opinion that the government shouldn't renege on its commitment to this particular approach to diversity.