reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @legalfeminist
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
The Legal Feminists have been reading CIPD's "Transgender and non-binary inclusion" guide.
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
They say they consulted "a broad range of stakeholders" - some with transgender and non-binary "lived experience". (We wonder, in passing, what other kind of experience there might be.)
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
We have not researched all the individuals named here, but our first impression of the acknowledgements page is that they have an idiosyncratic understanding of the word "broad".
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
The "key terminology" section starts badly, with a failure to acknowledge that the term "cisgender" is contentious, and one which many find offensive.
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
But a pretty good thumbnail account of what a GRC does for you (more detail here: https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/what-does-a-grc-do/)
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
A prudent turning of the telescope to the blind eye when it comes to neo-pronouns: https://t.co/I4N98x286i
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
Always a tricky one - how far to go in acknowledging that "trans" has been extended to include erotic cross-dressers, whether they cross-dress part- or full-time. https://t.co/qi6tagRdhY
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
This all sounds lovely, but employers need to bear in mind that they need to encourage gender critical staff to voice their opinions and talk openly too; actively stand up for their inclusion; and empower them to express their authentic selves. https://t.co/WHl6I2hfcu
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
Hang on, what's this about "showing outward acceptance"? What kind of form would that take, and how can employers properly demand it? It sounds awfully like compelling professions of a faith that other employees may not share.
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
This is going to get complicated in a workplace where the employer has even-handedly encouraged the trans/ally and gender-critical staff to talk openly and voice their opinions, and they're now all kicking off about how unsafe each other's opinions make them feel. https://t.co/EoJDvphqtf
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
More on Forstater. This looks like an attempt to confine the significance of Forstater (generally regarded by employment lawyers as a landmark case expressing a broad principle) to its own facts. https://t.co/DIEmAzturz
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
And to imply that although @MForstater's own particular belief (defined in that judgment) was WORIADS, it will be all still to play for in the case of others with slightly differently-expressed beliefs. This is a take that is likely to be expensive for employers.
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
And here we have the Banarama point: it's not what you said, it's the way that you said it. https://t.co/4FW4cv0mVK
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
Good thinking - zombies can be awkward to work with. https://t.co/Z71zREMsjX
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
It did say this. It was wrong as well as not being binding: the words of s.7 of the EqA 2010 are perfectly clear. https://t.co/0a2OASxRPv
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
Not that narrow - any time you genuinely need a man or a woman for a particular job, you can apply an OR; and it's difficult to imagine circumstances in which you have a real need for a woman, but a man with a certificate saying he's a woman would do just fine. https://t.co/ZakRPwTWyP
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
Bad advice. If you fail to collect monitoring data on sex, a tribunal could infer that you don't much care about sex discrimination. https://t.co/BaEIG5vg1a
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
Even worse advice. If you tell your staff they can use any facilities they please, so that the separate men's and women's loos are no longer single-sex, but mixed, you will be breaking the law. See ¶20 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. https://t.co/fdesPu64ab
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
An eye-popping case study. Why should staff have to be trained up in reading a colleague's "signals" as to whether he is in "girl mode" or "boy mode" today? https://t.co/sL5yCCI4cx
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
This all sounds fluffy, but doesn't help employers much with what they should actually do if Violet/Dave says he wants to use the ladies' on Violet days, and his female colleagues object. https://t.co/MEyDbF2Jnk
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
Again - it sounds nice, but make it concrete and the going gets tough. The employer has men's, women's, and a single-occupancy accessible toilet. Violet/Dave doesn't want to use the gents' on Violet days; the women don't want him in the ladies'. Where's he going to go? https://t.co/Pth2IH3HOK
@legalfeminist - Legal Feminist
This could be worse. But the bit about "misgendering" blandly assumes that people with trans identities are entitled to compel others to speak in ways that signal assent to gender identity theory. That's (at least) yet to be established. https://t.co/jsJ229V1rw
