Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

To ‘out’ or not to ‘out’ re GC position

59 replies

IAmSproutycus · 28/08/2018 08:38

Simply that. I’m at the point where I’m debating whether I’m more use staying publicly reasonably schtum (I’ve already tackled this a bit with my very large public sector employer and been roundly silenced at HR level) or whether it’s more use for me to talk out more openly, e.g on Twitter/push the issue at work. I am aware that there is the possibility (probability) that due to my job the TRAs might find me interesting to try to take down (that sounded really grandiose and knobby - I mean they might feel that they can argue I shouldn’t be in a position where I might ‘wrongly’ influence vulnerable people. I’m sure that in the grand scheme they may not give a turkey’s butthole about little old me and my opinions). Anyway, how can I/we be of most use? Yes, it’s feeling horribly risky, and I’m very aware that many people don’t have the emotional, mental, or physical resources to be able to speak out right now. I’m not sure that I do, either tbh. Sorry for the confused and rambly thoughts. In essence, do I go the route of supporting the inestimable stickerwoman etc (which I will continue to do) or do I
/(we?) add my name to the people who will speak openly about this. God, I’m beginning to sound a bit TRA meself (what about meme me meme me me me 😳😀)

OP posts:
Original poster
IAmSproutycus · 28/08/2018 15:01

My stance is not defeatist Trousered, it is anxious and cautious. I did not post on a Feminist board saying it is pointless to act for women’s rights, my OP clearly signposts a request for viewpoints on whether there is a more appropriate way to address the overall issue, by long term cumulative anonymous action, or by what can potentially be, for women, career affecting one off speak outs followed by long term legal action. I do not consider my post to be a non feminist thing to do, nor do I consider it a feminist thing to do. I’m saddened that my raising a question that is surely a quandary for many of us is being interpreted by you as ‘non feminist’ and ‘defeatist’. Surely non feminist would be ignoring the issue, not considering the issue, not have raised it at work in the first place? My goodness, if that is non feminist I’m not sure what bar I have to hit to achieve your award of ‘feminist’. Not feeling supported by this.

OP posts:
LadybirdsAreBirds · 28/08/2018 14:41

quiet. I mean officially, at work.

LadybirdsAreBirds · 28/08/2018 14:41

I'm not going to keep quite if this comes up.

Trousered · 28/08/2018 14:31

In essence organisations are to assume that the woman with the problem requires more education and to imagine it to be a similar situation to if a white woman did not want to share services with a woman of colour, in which organisations would not alter services to account for someone’s prejudice.

We all know this is a false equivalence. Where organisations are challenged they are correcting their position, see Swim UK, LAs, and so on. Taking a defeatist approach to this will get us nowhere. If you don't want to act, don't act, but writing on a feminist board about it being pointless acting for women rights is not a feminist thing to do. On the whole people don't join the dots. If you are responsible for service provision you should be considering this.

Original poster
IAmSproutycus · 28/08/2018 14:05

My most profuse apologies if anyone felt my own experience was indicating that I felt those in HR are eejits. It’s likely only the eejit I encountered in HR is an eejit, not all HR.

OP posts:
Trousered · 28/08/2018 13:42

I recently attended diversity training at a large organisation and the external trainer listed gender instead of sex as a protected characteristic. I hauled her over the coals in front of everyone every time she misused the word.

I explained I have been discriminated against all my working life because of my female sex not my gender identity and this is still the case.

I work in HR. We are not all idiots.

Original poster
IAmSproutycus · 28/08/2018 13:10

I think that the diversity training provided in many organisations, and I am speaking non specifically and generally and not directly about my own organisation, has headlined the relative vulnerability of trans women and the view that TWAW to the extent that any woman using organisations involving providing services to women is not allowed to ask for single sex service without being deemed transphobic. We (speaking generically as providers of services, not about directly my own organisation) are to treat the woman who is expressing a wish to not be provided a service in the same accommodation as the trans woman as if she is being transphobic and to move her to different accommodation where available, but otherwise to explain that we are inclusive and non-discriminatory. In essence organisations are to assume that the woman with the problem requires more education and to imagine it to be a similar situation to if a white woman did not want to share services with a woman of colour, in which organisations would not alter services to account for someone’s prejudice.

OP posts:
Needmoresleep · 28/08/2018 12:47

From what I hear several parts of the public sector in the past year or so has required staff to attend diversity training with an emphasis on gender rather than sex equality. Plenty of people are, often without realising it, quite GC. But know enough to keep quiet. In the same way as you pretend you really enjoyed the team awayday.

sociopathsunited · 28/08/2018 12:38

Can I check - sis that question for me trousered?

Cos if so........huh?

I don't work there any more, which I stated quite clearly in at least one of my posts. I said I'm self employed now.

But no, it was not about toilets. It was about being listened to and not written off immediately.

Trousered · 28/08/2018 12:28

I would not trust them to treat my concerns with respect or even to listen to me.

What are your concerns at work? Is it about segregated toilet facilities?

sociopathsunited · 28/08/2018 12:24

IAmSproutycus

I think I understand. I know, in my previous incarnation as an employee of a massive international company, I would not be comfortable sticking my head, individually, above the parapet. I would not trust them to treat my concerns with respect or even to listen to me. I didn't trust them when I left them over a dozen years ago, and so much has changed since then that I suspect that now, I'd be thrown to the lions without a second thought. New starts, who could be proved to be liars and thieves were already more believable than employees with almost 20 years of service. I have absolutely no idea how they'd react to someone not toeing the company line over this current woke bullshit.

Trousered · 28/08/2018 12:08

IAmSproutycus

I appreciate it is difficult to be specific. My take on this is that the conflict is not YET well understood within organisations.

However HR are generally a lot more pragmatic operationally than the D&I policy specialists are. We are used to trying to balance conflict. Certainly the conversations I have had about this with HR people reassure me that HR won't automatically come down on the side of a male asserting rights which are going to give women difficulty.

Original poster
IAmSproutycus · 28/08/2018 11:58

Sorry for typos, typing one handed (not in the commonly implied use of that phrase 😁, just on very crap phone!)

OP posts:
Original poster
IAmSproutycus · 28/08/2018 11:54

Sorry, Trousered, keen to not express more explicitly for the purposes of not risking accusations of bringing my own org into disrepute in any way. I hope you understand I’m not trying to be mysterious.

Upstart crow But this is exactly the point. Whilst understanding the very sensible rationale for this, it means that there are changes made in policy and procedure in organisations that are detrimental to the dignity and well being of women which are not being challenged due to (fully legitimate) fear of reprisals. How many little policy changes here, directives there do we leave unchallenged whilst we await some big sea change saviour who will miraculously change things. Even if we ‘win’ the self ID debate, we’re still left with the problematic situation that we started with, and I can’t see anyone back-pedalling on that. The equality act 2010, as I’m sure everyone is well cognisant of, offers protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment NOT at the point of acquiring a GRC, but as soon as that person stated that they intend to transition. That means IMO that we are in point of everyday application already at the point of self ID. Under the existing laws if I intended to misuse the laws for my own nefarious purposes, I could simply argue that I intended to transition. I already would not need any hormone or surgery changes now or indeed ever, and would not need to have signed anything or attended a gender reassignment clinic. (Please correct me if wrong, it’s been a while since I read through this). The changes would make things worse (I think) because the misuse of transgender in place of transsexual in various interviews,thought pieces, tweets etc makes it seems as if the law is applicable to anyone non binary, gender fluid, or whatevs who would like protection under that existing law, so the publicity means that the existing laws are more open to misapplication (again, IMO), but frankly I think we’re already approaching Gilead. I want badly to work under the protection of anonymity but am increasingly aware that I am probably one of the most educated person in my area of work on this issue (God help us all for that alone 😳), and that she. I speak to colleagues they agree with what I say, but feel that they are ‘not the right person’ to push this with HR as they don’t know enough. none of us know ‘enough’, most certainly not me, but I’m starting to wonder, if not me, who? Irrespective of UK law, who will debate in my organisation against the steady and quiet erosion of women’s rights if not me? I don’t have any of the answers to this, and frankly I’d give at least two teeth to have someone bigger, braver, more educated, feistier, and more robust to do this, but I can’t find her.

Charlie makes complete sense. I’m trying to work out from which direction I can pee furthest 😁

OP posts:
sociopathsunited · 28/08/2018 11:53

The golden ratio for social media posts is pretty much 1 or 2 GC posts to every 20 - 30. Maximum. Nobody can accuse me of being obsessed, I choose my moments carefully (thank you Jess and Aimee, you've been AMAZING!!!! I LOVE YOU) and I simply state facts and copy newspaper articles. I drop the mic and walk off stage, basically. I'm happy for people to not comment or ignore what I'm saying, but I'm also happy to engage if anyone wants to ask more, or discuss or even disagree.

MaisyPops · 28/08/2018 11:45

charlie
Not so much agonising, but then I don't go to work with a view of changing people's views.
The line at my school and at every school I've worked in is that trans people should be free from discrimination and where there are competing 'rights' the aim is to balance them whilst treating everyone well.
There's no need to get into pushing GC views etc.
We discuss stereotypes, we have groups for girls who like STEM, we have boys who at mentors, we have a full range time extracurricular for both sexes. We allow students to question and debate ideas of gender and equality etc in PSHE. We encourage students to be themselves and support them if they are struggling.

The role of the teacher isn't to push a GC agenda anymore than it is to push a TRA agenda. Our role is to equip the students with the ability to debate, discuss, think critically and develop their own views.

Charliethefeminist · 28/08/2018 11:40

I'm sorry, you weren't asking me. Ignore!

Charliethefeminist · 28/08/2018 11:39

No, it's not my job, although actually I think is is my job. It's complex, but it's to do with company policy.

Racecardriver · 28/08/2018 11:37

When you say pushing the issue at work does it actually come up at work? If it is in someway related to your work then supposedly it is part of your job to address it?

Charliethefeminist · 28/08/2018 11:36

Especially I appreciate that there are people involved in teaching, social policy, social policy implementation, HR, law and so on, who are toiling away trying to change minds on the inside. It must be agonising.

Charliethefeminist · 28/08/2018 11:34

I raise it at work but don't have arguments or conversations with colleagues. That would be counterproductive. I agree with the OP: what is the tipping point between being useful inside the tent peeing out, and being useful outside the tent peeing in. We need both. I'm grateful to those peeing in, and I'm grateful to those keeping schtum publicly and peeing out. Does that make sense.

Trousered · 28/08/2018 11:26

(I’ve already tackled this a bit with my very large public sector employer and been roundly silenced at HR level)

It would be interesting to understand what this means. I work in HR at an organisation which employs an extremely high profile GC woman, but also has trans inclusive policies and D&I Director with pronouns in her email address so the two ends of the philosophical range can co-exist in an organisation.

I am keen to understand what HR people are actually doing to "silence" if you don't mind giving more details?

MaisyPops · 28/08/2018 11:08

sociopathsunited
Exactly.
There's often no need to become a social media warrior. (Plus I have some friends very much indoctrinated into the TRA influence within LGTBQA+ etc movement)

I shared about the man who self id-ed as a woman to get on the shortlist to use his privilege in order to prove a point about self ID. Quite a few people said how ridiculous it was that he could even do that and in turn it led to 'but that's exactly what some TRAs want for women's spaces'. And I left it there.

What many people are starting to realise is there is a very big difference between the old school transsexual who nobody has any issues with and the brand of TRA which is more interested in silencing women than trans rights (and might actually be damaging to trans rights because if all you need to do is say 'I am a woman but I want my lady dick' then people who have gender dysphoria may start finding that medical pathways to alleviate their dysphoria get limited)

sociopathsunited · 28/08/2018 10:30

Going on, not taking on. Blinking autocorrect...

sociopathsunited · 28/08/2018 10:29

I drop wee stories of the "did you see that? What's taking on, the world is crazy" type into conversations and on SM. Then I leave it at that. I don't take a stance except the "world is mad!" I'm non judgemental about the overall picture, I just comment on the individual scandals. People will get defensive and upset if we generalise, but its terribly difficult to argue against the crimes of Challoner et al. I have a massive advantage as I'm self employed, my risks are minimal.

Swipe left for the next trending thread