Law Society virtue signalling

[MissBeehiving]

The Law Society awards are open for nomination at the moment and depressingly, the “Woman Lawyer of the Year” is now open to anyone identifying as a woman. So the award designed to celebrate the achievement of women in the legal profession, is now fair game for men.

www.lawsociety.org.uk/events/excellence-awards/categories-and-criteria/

Lass, there are various arguments against things like awards for women and All Women Shortlists.

However, there is a gender pay gap and the biggest factor affecting the gender pay gap is women's disproportionate caring responsibilities, particularly after they have had children.

Legislation has improved, but it has only very recently changed so that both men and women can share parental leave, and very few men actually take shared parental leave or go on the 'daddy track'. Senior people in their fifties and older are likely to have had children before men took any paternity leave and when women's maternity leave was much shorter.

Many industries still assume that if their high flying employees have children they have a Stay at Home Partner. Women in their thirties are still assumed to be likely to go on maternity leave.

You might not agree with positive affirmation, but the point is that the issues that affect women and trans women are different. If you are going to go down the positive affirmation route, you need to be clear about what the problem is, not just have some vague wishy washy idea about being generally nice to all people who suffer discrimination. You might as well have best female/BAME/disabled lawyer award.

There is a very strong argument that trans women suffer far more discrimination than women. However that is because they are gender non-conforming, not because people think they are just going to drop everything for the school play. If you are going to have an award, be clear about why it is necessary. Otherwise it is just patronising and pointless.

LassWiADelicateAir I don’t mean to be rude but I’m a bit confused about your contributions to this thread. You have said that you are a lawyer in a Scottish firm and have not had any problems as a woman there and cannot see the point of an award for a top female lawyer.

This is an award for lawyers in England and Wales where there are rampant problems with sexism, especially in London (as evidenced by both the Law Society survey and the anecdotes of the English lawyers who have contributed to this thread).

If you are in a work environment where you are lucky enough not to be affected by sexism then good for you, but your comments that this isn’t necessary because law is a great choice for women are ill-informed and at best irrelevant in the context of practising law in England and Wales.

I do not support special awards for women within a profession.

I do not support special awards for women within a profession.

Well of course you wouldn’t if you don’t this that there is sexism in that profession

Those of us who have experienced it understand the importance of things like this.

*think not this

I hate autocorrect

Thanks Longines and Morning I am thinking about what to do. It is difficult because AFAIK no other complaints from my colleagues, could just be me that objects to this. But I don’t know.
Then because it is one male-bodied individual who had already been using the womens toilets at work for some time, it could become personalised to me vs that individual- who management evidently see as a special case whose expectations should be met. I would fear coming off worse.

I am mulling over this.

My view is that the LS is discriminating against women by introducing the self id provision.

It disproportionately negatively affects women who are statistically more likely to bear the burden of being the primary child care provider/ work part time/ have less time outside of work to network etc and therefore they are not on an even playing field with transwomen in this competition.

I reckon that’s indirect discrimination as defined by the Equality Act?

Agree Italian- am tempted to apply for loads of inappropriate awards just to wake organisations and judging panels up a bit!

Hi Chatty

There’s definitely health and safety legislation on your side.

It’s difficult to raise your head above the parapet with sexist behaviour so you have my sympathy. I think that personally I wouldn’t take this tack as there’s too much to lose.

I think we should concentrate on a test case on the grounds of indirect discrimination that isn’t personal against eg The Law Society or Swim England and if this succeeds then you can point to that at work

Elle, yes, an applicable case would be ideal (as well as hopefully stopping this wider direction of travel?). I could just ‘helpfully’ point out a legal risk for management to address. They would not have to really look back at their own decision making thus far then. (Though who knows, maybe the conversation was just never had and this colleague just decided they would use the womens toilets and HR were not sure what how to respond, so just left it up to us to object,- and so they just never formalised anything.)
I am tempted to self ID as a man and start using the gents at work to see how they like it though.

Chatty, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask to see the policy - as you say, it might be that HR aren't even aware of the issue (or haven't thought it through), and as an employee, you're perfectly entitled to seek guidance as to your employer's stance on the matter.

I don't much care what the specific example is, in this case an award.

I care for the acceptance of a PRINCIPLE that has wide ranging consequences.
I care that the law is unpicking the definition of an entire class of people and their protections.

Oh, and to the twerp who called us bigots? Grow up and stop parading your ignorance on this subject.

Transwomen are men. All of them. Even your friends.
Biological sex is immutable, and I won't pretend a man's preference for stereotypes has anything to do with my biology. He can have all the stereotypes he wants but he doesn't get to define them as being the new, definitive 'female'.

I have been nominated (by myself ) for this award.

I hope that my citation wins the approval of the MN jury. Apologies if it doesn't go and do your own nomination!
An extract (I'll save you the full 500 words) reads as:

'Female' refers to the biological sex that has the potential to bear offspring; the holder of the XX chromosome. There is no confusion over female and male. 'Woman' is more problematic. It used to mean 'adult female' but it seems to be slipping into 'what we expect(ed) females to look like i.e. the gendered stereotype of the female'. Gender is a social construct. It is indefinable, malleable and a product of its times.

You comment that "In 2017, women solicitors represented more than half the profession, however still too few women reach senior level positions". I have a feeling that you meant to say 'females'. The reason why females tend not to reach the senior levels is not because of the outward expression of gender - skirts or high heels - but because of the effect of biological sex - menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and also all the medical complications arising from the aforementioned - on their careers. People who have the XY chromosome, males and male-to-female transwomen, do not have this interruption. Pregnancy etc can have several effects on females: actual pregnancy, discrimination against those suspected to be contemplating pregnancy and, most importantly, the whole system being set up to facilitate males (the patriarchy). Transwomen do not face these obstacles. Transwomen have not grown up being oppressed by males. They cannot simply self-identify and overnight think that they understand the female condition. It is insulting to females to think that transwomen can represent females. You might as well go the whole hog and say that manly males can speak for them, and totally silence the female voice. Plus ça chance, plus c'est la même chose.

The award is open to solicitors who identify as a woman. I am a womanly-ish female but I am not actually a qualified Solicitor. However, after closely following various television series I feel that I know all about being a senior-level Solicitor and therefore am eligible for this award. I trust that the Law Society does not find this self-identification at all offensive and contrary to their ethos, and that you find my submission worthy.

However, after closely following various television series I feel that I know all about being a senior-level Solicitor and therefore am eligible for this award. I trust that the Law Society does not find this self-identification at all offensive and contrary to their ethos, and that you find my submission worthy.

I am going to self-identify as a lawyer and bloody well nominate myself for this award.

bravo Eve

I did not RTFT

That leaves me with surgeon and astronaut

Rachel Dolezal (white) won a scholarship to University on the basis of identifying as black. No difference here. none at all. Pleasant individual, I believe. Yet she took the place of a black person.

Cue outrage

Annoying post. I have done something that will enable this to be considered by the right person at the right level. I can't say what, sorry - appreciate this makes the post v annoying. Nothing may come of it of course but perhaps next year they'll consider the issues.

Eve, I rather love you!

Best of luck in your endeavours, I hope you win!

I would totally vote for you!

Though I might identify myself as the winner first

I totally agree that this award should not be open to any TIMs however I do also have a problem with the award itself. I don't think there should be an award for Woman Lawyer of the Year, I'd rather call the organisation to account for why women are not better represented in the other categories (who will almost certainly be predominantly won by men). In particular I have a problem with this:

In addition to achieving professional excellence in her field at senior level, we're looking to recognise a woman solicitor who has achieved significant results either in her business or for the benefit of society through her legal skills. This individual will have opened doors historically closed to women and will be inspiring and influencing others to pursue a career in law.

This is typical of the challenges women face in law - she not only has to spend a huge amount of time to achieve in her career, she also has to have devoted time and attention to non-billable, non-BD work to "inspire and influence others". What are the chances she can do that if she is a mother?

This is typical of the way non-work activities are treated in law, especially in Magic Circle / City firms. It's acceptable for male partners to make time to fit in training to hike to the North Pole, write books, do a Masters, teach a university course or climb Everest (I know men who have done each of these and more) but trying to progress a career while having childcare responsibilities is not acceptable.

The idea of this prize going to a man is mind-bogglingly insulting to women lawyers, especially mothers.

oh, and all those men had school aged children.

That’s a really good point Flora

twitter.com/Loolovestea/status/976747980375117825

Someone on Twitter wondering if there has been any challenge to this? Does anyone on here know?

@JaimesGoldenHand are you suggesting that it would remain for this year but might be reconsidered for next year?