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
Just taking a look back at what Amnesty International said very confidently to the Gender Recognition Act reform consultation in 2018 (they were advocating for removing all safeguards and controls from getting a GRC)
Giving out more GRCs will not affect anyone else they said.
It would have no effect on the operation of the single and separate sex exceptions in the Equality Act.
None on the occupational requirements exceptions in the Equality Act.
This is what we mean when we say sex matters. It is what the Supreme Court meant when they said you have to be clear about what the different groups are.
It's not a legal nicety. It's not complex. It's not difficult.
It's just basic respect for women's humanity, with common sense.
I am so angry at all the highly paid people failing to do their job, who would not see that it is abusive to allow men into women's changing rooms, toilets and showers.
And even now who are resisting implementing the law. @NotPostingMatt @NHSConfed
Minister @RhonddaBryant says “We are opposing the amendment and are not intending to introduce similar legislation.”
Let’s look at the knots he ties himself in
He says “data accuracy is important. That is equally true for any data used in a digital verification service.”
OK so your new law will enable people to prove their sex accurately then? 🤔
Bryant says “the government is already developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex, via the Data Standards Authority.”
This is distraction.
Monitoring diversity information (which is about populations) is not the only reason why you want sex data.
Some times people want to make sure their sex is accurately recorded:
- For their own healthcare
- For social care
- For a job where sex matters
- For sport
- For safeguarding
- For use of single sex services
“the @StatsRegulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity last year, and all Govt Departments are now considering how best to address the recommendations of the Sullivan review, which we published.”
“That is the first reason why we will not be supporting this new clause or the amendment today.”
It says women only, which means no men.
It is lawful because the situation meets one or more of the “gateway conditions” for a lawful single sex service in the EqA, and it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
Who does the sign discriminate against?
Men directly.
What all of them?
Yes, because they are all excluded by the rule. Even the femmes, the crossdressers, the transwomen, the non-binaries and the gender fluids.