Law Society virtue signalling

Cross post Mrs Bert.

Thoughts?

Morning all

I am a woman solicitor and concerned

Mrs Bert, on the one hand, it’s not solicitors who society needs to weep for. As you say, there are far more vulnerable groups of women.

But on the other hand, if the actual state of the law is ignored by the Law Society (I don’t think someone who self identifies can meet the definition of a woman) what hope is there for the Women’s Holiday Centre, women’s refuges, etc?

I am fine with those who have legally changed gender being included btw

I'm not "playing the bigot card'. I am pointing out that misgendering trans people is bigoted and rude.

I incline to the view that biology is a matter of fact, and that gender is a set of societal expectations, and therefore fictional, but such is the ferocity of gender expectation these days (perhaps a result of the beginning of the end of the patriarchy as we have known it) that increasing numbers of people seem to believe that one fictional set of characteristics is more "them" than another.

I prefer to give them space, and save my anger for where it really matters: protecting women from men abusing self ID to invade our safety and erode our rights.

Ah I wondered how long before someone played the “bigot” card

I'm a solicitor, and a woman, and I can't believe what a bunch of bigots you are on here.

There are serious concerns to be addressed about self ID, but they are to do with working out how to protect women's safe places like refuges and rape crisis, not 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, because the lawyers of all kinds who deserve this stuff aren't the ones who have time to oil relationships.

There are also huge issues about women being silenced and intimidated for raising these concerns, but this kind of shit plays straight to that agenda.

I knew a trans woman in practice, she came out and transitioned whilst working in prison law, and for a pretty traditional firm. Brave as fuck. If someone gives her a gong it'll be a gong well bestowed. Perhaps wait and see who the LS honours before crying foul.

The Law Society gets ahead of the law to let men enter award for women.

What fucking world am I living in.

‘Doing their make-up’

And reiterates that the reason for discrimination is the lack of flexible working and work life balance. One of the initiatives flowing from the survey was to use awards to raise the profile of successful women in the Law. Oh the irony.

Well yes.

Are women under represented at senior levels in the law:

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)

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

d) lack of roll models and cultural conditioning? (Answer - see above and also deliberate recognition and highlighting of women’s achievement)

c) Because you know women - they spend so much time doing their make they can’t get to work on time.
(Answer - maybe some kind of consolation prize? Maybe save time by lumping in everyone who suffers discrimination?)

Completely agree with Barracker.

I don’t understand how the Law Society would accept this vague definition of a class of people.

Are words and meanings no longer important in the law?

To the solicitors - is there a thread on Roll on Friday about this? Could someone start one? And link to the government petition?

Funny how Jon disappeared when the female solicitors spoke up.

There is a bigger story here, it's not virtue signalling.and it's not about women as such.

I can't do bold but that quote slapped me round the face - coz ain't that the truth.

It's not about women as such.

And yet it's fine to bulldoze us out of the way whilst dealing with the issue.

If it's NOT about women then fuck off and leave us alone.

It reminds me of attitudes years ago toward homosexuals, and people of colour, ethnic groups etc etc

No, it is not the same. People don’t ‘identify’ as gay. They are gay if they meet the definition of the word which is that they are attracted to members of the same sex.

You can’t identify as gay despite being heterosexual, or black because you feel you share some kind of ‘essence of black’ despite being clearly white.

Yet somehow it is supposed to be possible to ‘identify’ as a woman? No. It is as offensive for a man to claim a female identity as it would be to claim a black or gay identity despite all evidence to the contrary. Yet strangely women are the only group expected to accept this rubbish.

Longines

I'm sure they are but the training my female City solicitor friend had sounded quite sensible.

Why just the m to f transsexuals though? They always seem to get special treatment.

The Law Society have been giving trans inclusion guidance (including a model transgender policy as a starting point) to law firms for years and run lots of LGBT events.

I strongly doubt that the women lawyers' division would object to this - I'm pretty sure I've met transwomen at women's events there. As a PP suggested, law firms can be seen as a bit stuffy (and I'm sure many of them are) and the Law Society have been under a lot of pressure to pull them into the present in terms of diversity and inclusion.

I read something from a senior law professor, female, that proposed the state could cease any sex registration entirely and the property attached to sex would be determined in every situation only by agreement or in the courts. She quoted the Canadian guy that spent 12 years fighting a womens's refuge as an example of how this works. This is where we are going.

The issue underlying all of this is our laws and what the impact will be if they are suddenly blind to sex.

If none of us had ever heard of the word trans, and such people didn't exist, how would we respond if:

One day men announced that it was time to remove every reference to the female sex written into law, and all rights pertaining to the female sex?

And to regain any semblance of protection going forward, people would need to claim membership of a new group, with undefined characteristics, that any person, male or female could join. Any sex discrimination women faced in the past would only be answerable to in law going forwards, by virtue of one being a voluntary member of this male+female group with undefined characteristics. Which renders sex discrimination redundant. You don't recognise sex, you can't respond to sexism.

Bin legal recognition of sex; gain potential membership of a murky unisex faith based group without characteristics. If you're prepared to take up membership. If not, you're in no-woman's-land. The law doesn't recognise your sex, and you have no belief-based-characteristic to replace it with. You've nothing, no recourse now.

If that isn't the most terrifying prospect for women's rights in a couple of centuries I don't know what is.

That is pretty much how I assess the current situation, and I can do this assessment without referencing trans.

The proposed changes to the law are about erasing any recognition of actual sex. Entirely.

Even as I write that out I can't believe that LAW makers aren't sounding alarms. Instead they are celebrating this.

I am a female solicitor , a mother and a partner but in a large Scottish firm so this does not affect me directly.

Homever I do not like the whole idea of "woman lawyer" of the year and would not include that category.

Personally I think law is an excellent career choice for a woman. The experiences on here about how difficult it is are not mine.

Bluntness100

So why are they opening the women's award to include men?

If they are really concerned about underrepresented lgbt people, they'd surely have an "lgbt" lawer recognition award.

You are not seeing gay or lesbian lawyers recognised in the slightest in this trans inclusivity. So it's not even LGBT beneficial it's just T beneficial.

This happens all the time. Organisations recognise a need to raise awareness of gay lesbian and transgender contributions. OK let's lump that in with the women and job done. Meanwhile women are left wondering what's going on.

"anyone identifying as women" only targets some of the "t" bit of the lgbt lawyers though so I don't accept that as the reason for this. A special lgbt award would be better if that was their goal.

There is a bigger story here, it's not virtue signalling.and it's not about women as such.

Law is under represented within the lgbt community, as in significantly so with very few openly lgbt lawyers. To the point it's verging on discrimination.

The big firms are trying to redress this balance. As such, this will have been one of the steps they are taking to ensure a more balanced and open culture.

I don't have an issue with this, based on what their goal is and the example they are trying to set.. Discrimation can take many forms across many sections of society, and trying to ensure they are fairly represented is fine by me.

Why say something in a way to just piss the other person off though? That isn't a good way of communicating.