Law firms in a muddle. (Roll on Friday)

[Imnobody4]

https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-law-firms-get-sex-muddle-over-supreme-court-verdict
Lewis Silkin was accused of being "grossly misleading" when it produced an analysis of the verdict which advised that men who identified as women were still entitled to use the single sex facilities of their choice in the workplace, and that employers who stopped transwomen from doing so could be sued for discrimination.“If employers do provide single sex spaces then (based on previous cases) it is likely to be gender reassignment discrimination to bar trans people from using the facilities of their choice. As this does not relate to GRCs [Gender Recognition Certificates], it is unaltered by the Court’s judgment", stated the analysis........After ROF asked the Law Society if the template policy, promoted by the SRA, potentially placed firms which adopted it in legal jeopardy following the ruling, it added a note at the top of the document warning, “We are currently reviewing this guidance in light of the recent Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers. Firms should continue to seek their own advice on these issues as applicable to their own circumstances”. The document, drafted by the Law Society's LGBT+ Committee and transwoman barrister Robin Moira White, also states that a “refusal to accept a trans person's gender identity” constitutes transphobia, which would now appear to catch the justices of the Supreme Court.Former tax barrister Jolyon Maugham, who runs the Good Law Project, might approve. Having predicted that "FWS will lose. The law really is pretty clear", following the verdict he posted on Bluesky that "There is a very real basis to believe - and I am a KC with an unblemished record - to believe that something very bad, delegitimising, happened in the Supreme Court", and claimed that the judges were "hubristic, reckless or bigoted".

Hmm it's becoming pretty clear who's had stonewall training

Does that "unblemished record" go to a different school?

Lewis Silkin took down their analysis providing misinformation and put v2 in its place:

Its v2 suggested that now a court needs to define what ‘biological sex’ means before anyone can understand the term: “The Supreme Court has said that the definitions of man, woman and sex in the Equality Act all refer to biological sex (although the judgment does not define what this actually means).”

Perhaps they've been talking to Dr Upton.

Crikey, I had to Google to confirm that Lewis Silkin is really a law firm. How could they give such wrong advice even after the SCJ?

That can't give people much faith in any other advice they are giving.

Glancing down to the bottom of the page I see a link to a story about an award of costs against Garden Court Chambers over "bundle bedlam".

To its credit RoF has been a site that has been pretty good (like MN) about allowing free debate about the 'gender identity' stuff.

This is even better!:

“Yet Lewis Silkin didn’t provide law's most contentious take on the judgment.
That honour went to Brabners, which published a bizarre summary wrongly stating that the case originated with a male athlete who had been discriminated against for identifying as a woman.
“The case in question arose from a challenge brought by a transgender woman who was seeking to compete in elite-level women’s sport”, hallucinated the firm.”

https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/gender-critical-barrister-wins-ps20k-garden-court-chambers-bundle-bedlam

This is quite shocking reading!

I have sent a message to them re single sex public toilets being the safest, and that I believe it’s disability discrimination to not have suitable toilets for those with invisible disabilities such as diabetes, epilepsy and heart conditions at work. Since the only toilet cubicles with door gaps are single sex designs it follows that it’s a very reasonable adjustment to have single sex loos.

Then mentioned the DfE school designs don’t have safety gaps anymore, despite every school having multiple children with those conditions.

I have written to them before, but it’s a niche subject. Let’s hope as it’s a topic on everyone’s minds it gets published.

Most city law firms are balls-deep in gender woo, having spent years competing to be the bestest ally, i.e. the most in thrall to Stonewall.

The only half-decent interpretation I can put on the LS advice is that some thrusting rainmaker is hoping to receive mandates to “stretch” the SC interpretation to allow TW in women’s facilities or even to apply for permission to appeal the SC judgment.

The Brabners one, otoh, was just written by a halfwit.

I assume the Brabners summary was just copied and pasted from an AI given incompetent instructions. Brabners look like a firm to avoid, whether that's a place to get legal advice from or as an employer.

Saw this today from our friend Robin Moira White. Embarrassing.

🤯

It brings to mind Freeman on the Land-type legal wrangling.

"If employers do provide single sex spaces then (based on previous cases) it is likely to be gender reassignment discrimination to bar trans people from using the facilities of their choice. As this does not relate to GRCs [Gender Recognition Certificates], it is unaltered by the Court’s judgment""

I don't understand this. Self ID is not a (legal) thing right? The EA grants the ability to have single-sex spaces based on (biological) sex. Gender identity without a GRC has nothing to do with it. If it did then the whole concept of single-sex spaces breaks down entirely (which is what the judgement went in detail to explain).

I think I am making the mistake of being logical. But I thought logical thinking and critical reasoning would be a requirement to be a lawyer. Silly me.

“If employers do provide single sex spaces then (based on previous cases) it is likely to be gender reassignment discrimination to bar trans people from using the facilities of their choice. As this does not relate to GRCs [Gender Recognition Certificates], it is unaltered by the Court’s judgment",

They're only right as far as gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the EA. In layman's terms this means you can't discriminate against anyone because of their gender reassignment. It doesn't mean trans people can do what the fuck they want and if they don't get it it's transphobic.

But no one would be denying them access to the toilet because of their 'gender reassignment'. They'd be denying them access because of their sex. In the event that two protected characteristics clash with each other, and one of them is fluid and one of them is immutable, which do you think wins?

If a man and a woman are both up for promotion, and the man wins it, can the woman automatically claim discrimination? Of course not. And guess where the initial burden of proof lies... yep, it's on the woman to prove there was discrimination, not on the employer to prove there wasn't (that part comes later, or there's no case to answer if she can't). The same applies about 'trans people using the facilities', they would have to prove 'on the balance of probability' that they were discriminated against because of their gender reassignment, but crucially, not because of their sex.

'I am a KC with an unblemished record'

I can hear it sung to
'I am a lineman for the county..'

It would make a great t-shirt slogan, wouldn't it?
You could have a Spartacus-like situation with hundreds of people claiming 'I am RMW, a KC with an unblemished record.' 'No, I am RMW, a KC with an unblemished record.'😃

The 'how dare you apply the law' card from RMW is hilarious. The lengths some alleged grown-ups will go to ...🙄
When I was about 10 my friends and I were always inventing 'Clubs' for ourselves, with fancy names, we used to write rules and regulations and we used to make ourselves little official-looking membership cards.
Then we turned 11.

wtf? That’s quite scary. Imagine working on the front desk of a gym and being faced with that card, proffered by a middle aged man saying ‘I’m a barrister, don’t you know.’ You’d be under high pressure compared to your paygrade.
Why is this still a discussion ? I listened to the judge live, it was very clear to me - woman = biological female. If anyone’s unclear on that they should just ask a toddler.

What about respect for life?
Mixed sex, enclosed toilets don’t respect that.

My understanding is that even a TW with a GRC can be excluded from single-sex spaces, ie the same as a TW without a GRC. In other words, the judgment makes the GRA pretty toothless.

Trans people with or without a GRC will still be protected from discrimination under the EA, either on the basis of gender reassignment or because of their perceived sex.

What an absolute loony.

I have learned from that Roll On Friday article that Robin Moira White is on the Law Society's LGBT committee. Is that the reason why RMW has not been investigated for professional misconduct?

Oh well that’s why my disability discrimination question never gets answered then.

Having already referenced Jimmy Webb's 'Wichita Lineman', I now can't resist referencing the Smiths -
'Law firms in a muddle - I know, I know it's serious'

Sorry, I keep doing this, I can't help myself, EVERTHING reminds of a line from a song🙄

So they are going to continue to bully women and are adding threats of litigation.

I am so sick of these men.

All protected characteristics are equal but some are more equal than others?