Law Society Revises Policy on Single Sex Spaces

[Ekofisk]

The Law Society has amended its template policy on gender identity to acknowledge that single sex spaces in law firms may be permissible, and to remove the automatic right for people to use the toilets and changing rooms of their choice.

www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-law-society-revises-policy-single-sex-spaces

I believe (from memory) that the Law Society is one of the recent Stonewall Diversity Scam escapees.

Embarrassing for the Law Society to have not known the law...
but glad they’ve at least published this. Will any of these reverse ferreting organisations ever publicly apologise for giving out inaccurate sexist advice? There does seem to be a widespread failure of leadership and expertise and critical thought shown by a lot of them that the decided to adopt legally biased or overrreaching policies without public debate on what they were doing.

Plus how are we supposed to take seriously any corporate commitments that any of these organisations now make towards ‘diversity’ with regards to women when we know they are so readily content to disadvantage women?

If you look back at other threads the Law Society have been written to by women on this issue (In relation to prizes for women iirc) and that direct feedback didn’t have this effect of changing policies. So we know they don’t actually care what women think even when it’s directly pointed out to them. Shows again that Maya’s case has been invaluable. Thank you Maya.

How very kind of them to say that single sex facilities are 'permissable'.

Not important. Not required. Not needed.

But if s firm wants to have some. It's permissible.

Thank you so much?

The comments are interesting. More and more people are speaking up.

@AnyOldPrion

The comments are interesting. More and more people are speaking up.

That was always going to happen once the first parts of the dam came unstuck. The dam wasn't very well built anyway but although I think we're getting so much sunlight I wonder how long it will take to de-transinstitutionalise the institutions (nice new invented word )

@SpindleWhorl

I believe (from memory) that the Law Society is one of the recent Stonewall Diversity Scam escapees.

The Law Society is still on the Sex Matters list of SW champions.

[quote Ekofisk]The Law Society has amended its template policy on gender identity to acknowledge that single sex spaces in law firms may be permissible, and to remove the automatic right for people to use the toilets and changing rooms of their choice.

www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-law-society-revises-policy-single-sex-spaces[/quote]
So is Sainsbury’s watching this?

I applied to be on a women’s committee for the Law Society and the questions included “how will you support ALLwomen”.
They wrote back saying they weren’t interested in me although I fitted the criteria (they wanted people outside London)

Vote of thanks to RollOnFriday btw

Favourite comment:

“If only boys weren't so worried about being called gay none of this would be a problem”

@Ekofisk I must have been thinking of this (from rollonfriday.com),

The Solicitors Regulation Authority declined to clarify whether or not it was still a Diversity Champion. A Law Society spokesperson said, “Like most organisations the Law Society regularly reviews its memberships as they come up for renewal and we will do this with Stonewall as usual”.

It's a couple of law firms like Moon Beever of Gray's Inn that have definitely left.

I wonder if the Law Society will quit the scheme, now it itself has had to contradict Stonewall's expensive, incorrect advice?

According to its FOI response The Law Society renewed its annual DC Stonewall membership in 2020. Renewal is due in August.

Watching with interest.

Wow - excellent news!

Pleased as I am to hear this, it's absolutely shocking that the fecking Law Society has been interpreting the law incorrectly.

Everyone who has been merrily imposing an illegal ‘law’ needs to be looked at and reviewed. Those making the decisions have to be brought to account because there will have been voices saying ‘this isn’t right, we don’t like this!’ (And they will have been told to stfu or bullied/branded).

Let's not forget that all of this tide-turning and scale-falling is the indirect result of Liz Truss drawing a line in the sand last October!

And no, I'm not a Tory voter. But total disaster was averted.

@NewlyGranny

Let's not forget that all of this tide-turning and scale-falling is the indirect result of Liz Truss drawing a line in the sand last October!

And no, I'm not a Tory voter. But total disaster was averted.

Yes, that was significant. And I don't think it's overstating it to say that the detailed responses to the GRA consultation informed by discussion on this site played a part in that.

No wonder there are efforts to make us shut up.

@AnyOldPrion

The comments are interesting. More and more people are speaking up.

I think that we've discussed articles published by RoF before. It was noted then that they had a particularly sensible comment section.

Yet more unsubstantiated repetition of the "most marginalised" claim by the LS. Will someone ever provide any evidence for it?

Quick reminder that SRA is the regulator, Law Society is the representative body.

If the SRA is a SW champion, they should be very red faced by now, especially as we now know what it takes to be in the top 100. Perhaps they hope they can cancel their membership before anyone finds out

One supposes, that if they knew SW were misinterpreting the law, that they would have told everyone???

Original seems to have gone for some people.

archive of Roll on Friday : archive.is/utwuX

Of course it bloody well ‘may be permissible.’ 🙄🙄 — it absolutely is permissible! Ffs how did things get into such a mess.

Do we know yet whether the Law Society renewed its SW membership in August?

#shitwewentabittoofar