I wouldn’t recommend you wear a dress in your jobIt is a representation of a man and a woman, simply wearing a dress doesnt mean that you are a woman.
I wouldn’t recommend you wear a dress in your jobIt is a representation of a man and a woman, simply wearing a dress doesnt mean that you are a woman.

There are different rules for the ratio of people to toilets based on the number the facility is expected to service.More explanation needed!

I think he realised it was a vote loser.What he has done was a political mistake
Labour have done a reverse ferret and broken their manifesto
Stupid Labour have fallen in a Tory / Reform trap.
might it be that she was representing her side of the argument? i.e. that of a trans activist lawyer, who has written books and subsequently written articles suggesting the Supreme Court got it wrong.
When people say "normal" most times (but not always) they don't mean something bad, they simply mean what the majority is/does.I have to say that I take massive issue with this.
WTF is normal?
I hate that word! Like I hate the word nice...
I hate it anyway, but even more so because I have been asked all my life, mostly by kids but sometimes by ill-informed and insensitive adults too:
"Why can't you be (more) normal?"
I have CP (due to asphyxiation at birth) and since I was a kid, children and adults have laughed at me in the street and called me the S word, mocking me by talking in a strange voice, even though I don't, and grossly exaggerating my limp. Yes, you might say, you were born in the 60s and grew up in the 70s - things were different then. But these events, though less frequent, still happen. The only difference these days is, I talk back.
i believe everyone is different, everyone is unique.
Even if you are only talking about sexuality, it's not just about gay or straight.
To me, there is no such thing as normal.

She has stated the Supreme Court have made a mistake and I haven't seen her write anything that supports the idea that a woman is defined by biology.I don't think so. She represents all sides of the argument in her cases. If she didn't give the best advice to the businesses she represents, she would have a very short career and end up being sued for professional negligence. But I would really like to know what she meant.
www.personneltoday.com
www.lawbriefpublishing.com
She has stated the Supreme Court have made a mistake and I haven't seen her write anything that supports the idea that a woman is defined by biology.

what do you think she was giving when she was on your BBC program?Barristers often give legal advice which conflicts with their personal views. Her bio at chambers says she represents both sides including multinational businesses.
what do you think she was giving when she was on your BBC program?

can't watch BBC - sorry. But I did see her in an interview on ITV and another Barrister disagreed with her view. Beth Grossman was part of the case team.It seemed to me that she was giving an opinion on how businesses would react to the ruling based on discussions she had already had with them. It's a shame nobody else in the debate on Politics Live asked how what she was saying could be reconciled with Approved Document T. Here is the show. The bit you need is actually very short. It starts at 10 mins 45 seconds and goes on to 13 minutes exactly. I will be interested to see what you think.
![]()
BBC Two - Politics Live, 22/04/2025
The Supreme Court rules on the definition of a woman, and the local elections.www.bbc.co.uk
can't watch BBC - sorry. But I did see her in an interview on ITV and another Barrister disagreed with her view. Beth Grossman was part of the case team.

Did they discuss the point we were discussing above about how businesses will react as regards the provision of toilets?
Beth says she is wrong. My view - some poor pub owner is going to get sued for not providing a trans space and asking a trans person to use the toilet of their biological sex.

You have so much faith in BarristersBeth doesn't actually cover the point I am interested in. Robin makes the same analysis as on Politics Live i.e. that it will lead to a many more gender neutral toilets. If that was actually against the new building regs, then surely Beth would say so. But she doesn't. So, with two top barristers debating this issue and neither mentioning even the possibility that it might be against building regs, then I have to assume that is not the case. Although, I cannot actually reconcile why!

I would be a bit like marilyn munroe in some like it hot I suppose, only hotterI wouldn’t recommend you wear a dress in your job![]()