Another win - London Mathematical Society

[Lovelyview]

https://www.thetimes.com/article/39292bf8-9602-4680-8094-54b8f0ff86aa?shareToken=201b8ee6e8885d481c1af538aa41ba72

Good for John Armstrong. It’s so cheering to see a male standing up for GC beliefs.

Great news. I wish article titles would be a bit clearer though in terms of this not being a 'trans inclusion' issue, but a female exclusion issue. No trans people are excluded for goodness sake. It's not about the bloody men!
But still, hurray!

Excellent, well done Dr Armstrong.

Wooohooo well done that man

Well done!

Interesting that once they took legal advice they withdrew the guidance - we all know what that legal guidance will have said.

But they still have to offer the sop to TRAs that they’re waiting for the clarifying EHRC guidance.

Many organisations mentioned in these threads are keeping their illegal policies in place while they wait for the EHRC guidance. On the balance of probabilities the mathematicians must have decided that was too risky!

I see this outcome as evidence that more/some lawyers are not sitting on the fence anymore and are telling clients they need to comply with the law as it is now and not wait for guidance. It only took a “letter before action” too which presumably only costs a few thousand £ which is a lot cheaper than these employment tribunals.

I see this outcome as evidence that more/some lawyers are not sitting on the fence anymore and are telling clients they need to comply with the law as it is now and not wait for guidance.

The lawyers know they can be sued if they tell their clients to wait for guidance rather than informing them what the law actually says.

The lawyers know they can be sued if they tell their clients to wait for guidance rather than informing them what the law actually says.

I suppose that makes sense, but suing a lawyer is quite brave.

They’re still saying

“However, the practical implications of the legal judgment in For Women Scotland [the Supreme Court’s ruling] are unclear and, like many other organisations, we await further guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”

ffs. It’s perfectly clear to any rational person with a reasonable grip of the English language. Maybe the mathmos need some Venn diagrams?

There's also the factor of cumulative decisions based on legal advice to add to the pot. When an organisation is first to have to make this kind of decision it can go either way, but as organisations see a large number of other organisations going in this direction the prudent choice seems ever clearer.
It is the herd mentality that previously worked for gender woowoo now working against it. I assume these decisions get reported in legal profession perodicals, and you'd have to be as bonkers as the fox botherer to decide to go against the grain as it's become clearer and clearer where all this is heading.
I'm not sure your average legal professional would want to take the ever increasing risk going forwards.
Journalism may be fertile grounds for activism, I doubt the legal profession is.

Even informing a solicitor that you might take legal action against them is enough to increase the solicitors indemnity insurance premium as they have to inform their insurers about potential legal action.

This is exactly how I read it too. Basically they're saying to the TRAs "look, we're perfectly happy to change it back as and when the EHRC tells us to" knowing full well that that's not gonna happen because the SC ruling is actually crystal clear.

Thank you John Armstrong!

Well done John Armstrong for joining the ranks of courageous women and men challenging this toxic ideology. Thank you.

Fabulous outcome.

Excellent. I still can't comprehend how mathematics of all sciences can have been captured. Do they not get that if all of a sudden the definition of ln as the only primitive of 1/x worth 0 in 1 changes, then many of the previously accepted theorems do not hold anymore ?