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".

Not sure if he has completely given up the day job, but I really wouldn't ask him for any tax advice.

"To prove we would never do what our opponents accuse us of doing, we're going to do exactly that!"

Blown away by this legal intellectual powerhouse here.

@Keeptoiletssafe I find your posts very informative.

What is clear to me is that if we go back 10+ years, toilets were actually pretty good. There was usually single sex provision plus (with the door gaps) a separate unisex disabled loo for those who needed more space/hand rails/a sink. The social contract was clear and the people who broke it were few and far between.

So, things have got worse and it's going to be a hell of a pain to get back what was lost. I would like to see more 'changing places' toilets for the very disabled who need a hoist, so maybe this is an opportunity to work towards that?

I have a local town that I now avoid (where possible) due to their expensive, fancy, new loos. They do have a 'changing places' loo, but the single sex ones are now gone and the single occupancy, unisex loos are awful. My biggest issue with them is the the door is worked by a sensor. There is no physical handle or physical lock to let yourself out. It terrifies me that if the power failed (or the sensor broke) I would not be able to get out and would be stuck in a dark, enclosed space for god knows how long.

Annascaul · Yesterday 18:18

Oh dear, poor old Mad "Bob" McMad is another one who has latched onto the:

The Supreme Court are Worse Than 10,000 Hitlers!11!!

nonsense. Does they turn into a clownfish if them goes to the swimming pool? I wonder if White and Maughm are likely to be discipli ed for bringing their profession into disrepute?

Yes. I have so many examples of where design has gone wrong. There must be a way to fix this.

The ‘locked’ door mention in the EHRC statement is dodgy because of the (often retrospective) safety measure of getting people who have collapsed out. Locked and secure are different terms.

Crikey, this ideology really does make people irrational. Look what it did to Susie Green, Helen Webberly, Adrian Harrop, India Willoughby.

This is a lawyer, encouraging people to break the law And using ideological language that makes him sound crazy.

@CriticalCondition There aren’t any suitable WTF emojies to respond with. WTF???

It’s just bullying - trying to get your way by threats and aggression.

You have literally described my job as a lawyer!

JM's brain must be completely addled. Does he really think that 'cis' blokes with beards and work trousers barging into the ladies' loo as a protest will persuade us to let the blokes in dresses in?

ETA - following the comment above about RMW and his card I've realised, duh, the same applies to JM's rallying call for men to use women's loos. It's not about persuasion, it's about threats and aggression.

But you must have professional indemnity insurance to protect your clients if you give really batshit advice.

I wonder if PI insurance providers ever refuse insurance because of obvious batshittery?

I suppose however there is a difference between asking for donations (caveat emptor),spouting off on Good Morning Britain and having a contractual relationship with a client.

I wonder if any lawyers were involved in the ‘legal’ advice given to institutions?

That’s so interesting. I remember April Ashley being in the news when I was a girl, but didn’t understand the detail or context and had no idea about the intricacy of this
judgement.

Also, punishing women. How dare we!

I can never understand why supporting women's rights is right wing.

Basically as a lawyer you have to say "yes you can do it" and find a way.

If you say "no, the law doesn't allow that" you are considered to be the "sales prevention team" and get criticised.

All lawyers are told they are there to enable the client's wishes - somehow.

So if a client wants to be a "right wing bigoted" women supporter you find a way.

And if they want you to be a "be kind" transmaiden, you enable that.

Presumably both JM's demands and "the card" will be used in women's showers, hospital wards, bra fitters, children's facilities etc. Anywhere where there's a safeguarding issue?

Agreed - it's not a gotcha - it's screaming all the quiet bits out loud. But it is showcasing to an appalled public the batshit lack of respect for safeguarding and boundaries that women have had to tolerate for so many years.

I think it has to. Their fundamental belief requires denying reality.

Not the belief in gender identity, which is no different to any other spiritual belief, but the belief that this thing is to all social purposes interchangeable with biological sex and therefore biological sex can have no social requirements that are also required by gender identity.

But reality keeps popping up. So the bubble of reality they need to deny keeps getting bigger.

"TWAW >> Some people disgaree? >> Only transphobes don't think TWAW >> Feminists are saying this impacts women's groups and protections? >> Feminists have all turned into right wing plants >> the Supreme Court say the law recognises sex in singel sex exemptions? >> the Supreme Court are facists >> the governemt agrees? >> riot on the streets to protect trans people!!"

JM is clearly unwell and escalating. He looked physically unwell in what is now referred to as his ‘hostage video’.

I think the most unhinged part of his most recent Tweet (or it may be Bluesky) is referring to the Labour Party issuing punishment beatings. I would like to think that he is speaking metaphorically, but it doesn’t come across that way due to previous postings about ‘cis males’ inspecting female genitals.

Clearly, he is currently unable to regulate his thoughts or emotions. I imagine his friends have tried to intervene, but he isn’t listening. I guess that he may have lost the types of friends who would do this and is now only surrounded by TRAs.

Holy fuck.

Hilarious that he says "donning the clothing of feminism" to refer to people who are supposedly not feminists.

Actually finding it hard to remember which side he's on. Joly, maybe steer clear of the argument that dressing as something doesn't make you that thing, and in fact you may well be the opposite....?

It’s not that it’s incorrect, it’s just that there’s a lot of grey areas in the law and a lawyer’s job is often to find the best legal argument in support of the client’s case (even if they don’t necessarily agree with it).

Do you think he's developing psychosis? It certainly look that way.

Is he really a KC?

He seems to be having a crisis in public

Some of the advice given on this particular issue has been quite clearly incorrect - but I don't know if that was advice given by lawyers.

Could be. I wonder if it could be substance abuse related. I expect his life is very challenging and that he has lost quite a few ‘protective factors’ in terms of supporting resilience over the past few years. He may have been ‘self medicating’ over time?