In our second episode on the Supreme Court Judgement on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act, Rachel and Simon again explore the complexities. The re-statement of the law by the Court is crystal clear. But the reaction has ranged from the practical and sensible to the defiant and the downright defamatory. And from some people who should know better. Why did one of the leading law firms in the UK host a session where the Supreme Court Judges were described by a panellist to laughter as “f******g idiots”? Who shouted what insult at Simon on the bus? Why was Rachel’s conversation with a bricky on the train so surprising? What's the article with the best legal advice that we've found so far? Why should leaders be very cautious about them or their company grandstanding on the issues rather than remaining impartial and lawful and practical? Which is the best and most straightforward advice to be found for leaders navigating all this? More conversation and common sense from R&S on a subject to which we will undoubtedly return

Links:

Joanne Moseley - Irwin Mitchell

Do retailers have to provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for their customers and staff?

https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/expert-comment/post/102kb9l/do-retailers-have-to-provide-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms-for-their-cust

Strathclyde Uni Law Blog

https://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/lawschool/blog/genderdoesntmatter/

https://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/lawschool/blog/gendermatters/

Times Editorial: Opponents of trans ruling should put pragmatism over ideology

Supreme Court judgement: For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent)

EHRC Statement: An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment | EHRC

For more about Rachel: Who Is The Fearless Facilitator? - Fearless Facilitator

For more about Simon: Who We Are – Diversity by Design

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.