Law Society virtue signalling

ChattyLion, I see what you're saying and I agree that it's a lot easier for everyone if there's an actual policy in place to challenge as opposed to everyone being so scared of doing/saying the wrong thing that they just ignore it and wait until someone (likely to be a woman) is confronted with the issue and has to deal with an actual real life situation single-handedly and with no official guidance.

The point I was making is that the LawSoc is following its own guidance that it's been giving out to firms since 2015, so there's no inconsistency there.

I think you should ask HR to see the transgender policy as there clearly needs to be one (for everyone's benefit) in a situation where the issue is affecting employees.

Grasp on reality.

I hope all women solicitors avoid that category like the plague. Instead I hope women, females, are put forward for all other categories and do brilliantly

I agree. I think it is a redundant category , not because a trans woman might enter it but it shouldn't be there at all.

I agree with you @Mouthtrousersafrocknowandthen

If anyone identifying as a woman can enter then no point, because it's unfair, and because it's pointless.

I hope all women solicitors avoid that category like the plague. Instead I hope women, females, are put forward for all other categories and do brilliantly.

My best ever boss was female, my best ever doctor is female, if I had a solicitor I see no reason to expect a female could not do a brilliant job.

I understand why we have these women categories but it's now redundant, it's a joke. I am not complaining about trans women with GRC I am saying self I'd is bullshit and anyone who thinks you can self id into being a woman has such a tenuous heap on reality I would not want then to be legally representing my cat, let alone me!

It is absolutely pathetic to hear other women minimising that by saying that she only got it because of “networking” and “knowing the right people”.

That wasn't what was said. A couple of posters made comments about the validity of all these types of awards.

It is absolutely pathetic to hear other women minimising that by saying that she only got it because of “networking” and “knowing the right people”.

If you don't think that profile-raising is a part of 1) advancing a career in law or 2) being recognised with an award, then I would suspect that you're not in the industry or a tad naive.

Networking is a big part of being a lawyer in private practice and it is time-consuming for the individual and their firm (and often costly) to apply for an award, so the chances are that many of the women working their arses off to juggle everything won't apply anyway.

To see these awards as some sort of meritocracy where the women quietly beavering away will magically get recognised without a lot of hard work going into their self-promotion is silly.

Longines I think we are saying similar things?. I dont think a policy in itself sorts out the problem, if that policy advocates self ID. What I’m saying is, I am in a workplace without a policy and without any discussion of these issues at a senior level that would go with such a policy. So I don’t have any formal system to question the self ID in my workplace. There is the chilling effect of self ID already happening, I could be accused of bullying if I complain. I recognise that the same chilling effect could be in place if there is a policy that supported self ID (because I would be swimming against the party line to challenge it) but at least there would bea formal mechanism for challenging a policy. And we need a much clearer legal steer about when equality act protections on single-sex spaces can be used so people running workplaces and services can be clear about when they can keep them single-sex.

I think it’s essential to have clear law and policies in this area. Which is why the Law Society are acting appallingly here.

They do have clear guidance and it recognises social transitioning (i.e. living openly in their chosen gender) as distinct from medical transitioning. So essentially, self-ID.

No one is saying that a TIM doesn’t deserve an award. What they are saying is that they shouldn’t get THIS one. No TIM will ever go to work pregnant. Pregnancy is pretty tricky to hide, even if you wanted to, but once people have seen you pregnant they make various assumptions about you and these do affect your career. Likewise, if you are a woman who is married and between 25-40, people will assume you are likely to get pregnant and this is also likely to affect your career.

No TIM is likely to be a role model to a female the way a woman is.

A TIM will face other hurdles. There could be other awards that this would make them qualified for.

I agree with many PPs and merrymouse

I think it’s essential to have clear law and policies in this area. Which is why the Law Society are acting appallingly here.
It’s not ok to give up on women’s single-sex spaces, opportunities, awards because of some thoughtless or misguided sense of being equal ops.

That taking of women’s prizes and opportunities and ’opening them up to ‘anyone who IDs themselves as a woman’ isn’t inclusion, it’s just pretending that there was a level playing field to begin with, which is utter bullshit. Especially at work for women. The odds being stacked against women was why those single sex spaces and opportunities were started in the first place. It’s the opposite of inclusive to remove those things from women. Taking nothing from men, generally the more advantaged sex at work.

Would everybody who is so ‘inclusive’ say we should remove all workplace measures for people with disabilities or people from ethnic minorities or lesbian or gay people, because that support or protection is not inclusive? No. So why do women just have to inclusively welcome the destruction of the minimal protections we have?

My workplace is keen to virtue signal about its ‘inclusiveness’ like a lot of other places but without doing any of the actual work with the staff or setting out of proper policies to BE genuinely inclusive.

End result: we have an (I think AGP) male colleague in the women's toilets on his say so, which I can do fuck all about.
That’s how men who give the appearance of acting out an appropriative sexual fetish about their idea of ‘womanhood’ (which is sometimes quite inappropriately sexualised for work in its expression) can be in the cubicle right next to mine.

When I am dealing with my periods, pissing audibly or trying to sort out my tights etc etc. I just don’t want to do that next to male bodied people, however nice or harmless- seeming they are.
I also resent the double standards- if me or my female colleagues turned up dressed in a sexualised way at work one day, we’d get taken aside by HR for a talk.

I can’t talk to HR or to my colleagues about any of this in case it gets me into trouble for bullying.

It has not been my experience such an assumption is made but if you choose the "mummy track" I don't think you can complain if your career does not advance as far as some one who doesn't

This is kind of the issue. Men overwhelmingly do not have to make the choice between becoming a parent and progressing in their career, hence why women are not retained or proportionately represented at the top of the legal profession.

Lass,

On my first day back at work after maternity (full time) I shared a lift with a senior partner. After congratulating me on my baby he asked “don’t you want to be with him?”.
So yes, there is an assumption.

It is harder for a woman in the legal profession because of biology.

It’s not wearing skirts or make up.

squabbling over some pointless industry award that will just go to someone who just knows the right people and is good at networking, rather than someone truly inspirational

I agree.

a) Because women are disproportionately responsible for caring and end up on the ‘mummy track’? (Answer - legislation and cultural change so that men equally responsible for caring)

Legislation is in place and so far as "cultural change" assuming you are not a single parent that starts in your own home. Sort it out so that you are not the main carer.

b) because people assume they will choose ‘the mummy track’. (Answer - see above)

It has not been my experience such an assumption is made but if you choose the "mummy track" I don't think you can complain if your career does not advance as far as some one who doesn't.

There is a Scottish consultation that has just ended and it's looking likely they will push it through. The rest of the UK reforms seem to have been put on a back burner for the moment, maybe because of Brexit or because they realised it's going to be problematic. It may be that they are waiting for Scotland to go ahead and see how it pans out.

The Scottish consultation by the way was the most badly worded drivel ever. There was a long thread in AIBU that covered it.

These are the women who really need support:

mobile.twitter.com/LucyLoveslife1/status/973852316787933184

Does speaking up on the seemingly less important issue of this award help women who urgently need help?

It is odd.

Is there legislation passed or before parliament to allow self I.D.?
I understand there was a bill but it is unlikely to

Mrs Bert

How would you feel about someone like Phillip/Pippa Bunce winning the award as they did in the finance sector. Phillip is gender fluid so basically identifies as male or female depending on how he feels that morning.

This is what the door is open to with self ID and it seems organisations are just going with it despite it not being current law. I suspect even a self ID law would not allow for 'changes mind on daily basis' yet giving Phillip Bunce an award meant for women is somehow seen as progressive.

Mrs Bert
A bigot is a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. I think that sounds like you to be honest.

Calling women bigots for raising concerns is shameful. You say “this kind of shit plays to that agenda”, in fact coming on here and telling the women in this thread that you “can’t believe what a bunch of bigots they are” for “squabbling” over this is exactly the sort of thing which silences women.

This is not the most serious example of how self ID will affect women, and I don’t think anyone on this thread has said that it is. It is, however, plainly a symptom of a wider issue, and the biological reality of women bearing the brunt of the effect of pregnancy/maternity leave/child care on career matters.

And to argue that you know someone who transitioned and is brave and deserves an award is a really poor argument. I’m sure she does deserve an award, firstly it doesn’t mean it has to be this one, and secondly if she has a GRC not many people would have a problem with her winning this one. It is self ID that people are complaining about being eligible, not trans women who have transitioned so your example is totally erroneous.

And I have never misgendered anybody in my life.

I'm another female solicitor adding my voice to the weight of concern already expressed.

I'd echo how difficult it was to proceed in my career (City corporate) once I got pregnant - I struggled to breaking point when I returned to work after my first and gave up private practice after my second.

Given the stream of gender-pay gap headlines I've been reading in the Lawyer over the last few weeks (men always paid more - unless at a junior level - once moving into the senior ranks its universal that the men earn more) I'm dismayed that anyone who studied and qualified as a man and who will never be pregnant can be eligible for this award.

The Law Soc should recognise trans/LGBQT+ lawyers with their own award.