Barracker, it’s sometimes useful to flip the protected characteristic to examine an argument. You wouldn’t, for example, suggest that a black barrister could not defend an organisation accused of racism, or a female barrister be unsuitable to act in a sex discrimination case with a female claimant.
I regard it as a mark of professional practise that, as well as acting and advising Claimants with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, I have advised and acted for those accused of gender reassignment discrimination or who wish to understand, truely what the extent of the protection afforded to that group is.
The fact that we barristers fo this as a fundamental part of our professional practice is not always grasped by the wider world. You may remember, (if you are unfortunate to be as old as I am !) in the early days of the Blair government, Cherie Blair being criticised by the Labour movement for advising an employer on defending an attempt by a union to be recognised in a particular workplace.
It’s what we do.
I suppose I get frustrated when I see patently incorrect statements about what the law IS. (And ‘guidance’ that is built on myth or misinterpretation or wishful thinking.)
I have absolutely no problem with folk wanting, and campaigning for, the law to be something different from what it is.
But you have to start with an understanding of what it is, and, in this area, how the courts have interpreted ‘legitimate aim’ and ‘proportionate means’.
Sorry for this being a didactic post. As I have said, I’m speaking on this issue this weekend and I seem to have my ‘law lecturer’ head on today.