Joseph Rowntree Foundation

At least they're going to add the category of sex. That's a good result.

Thanks, sackrifice. I look forward to learning from where those definitions arose.

I've responded anyway, and just asked for the source of those definitions. Will post them on here if I ever get them.

What is the source of the so-called government definitions of sex and gender. It certainly is not any current UK law.

UK law defines sex as: "a congruence of chromosomes, gonads and genitals".

Gender is undefined in the text of any current UK law [ie: it has no legal definition]; as are "transgender", "gender identity", "gender expression". These terms have zero legal meaning in the text of any current law. The only term that is currently used in the text of any UK law is "transsexual"[ referred to in the GRA 2004 and Equality Act 2010].

Assigned at birth is the biggest crock of word shit. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just virtue signalling.

I just got mine - I had to ask 3 times and then asked who I had to escalate it to as it had been over a week since my original email.

Good Afternoon

Thank you for your email raising concerns about our advert. I have been provided with some feedback from our Head of Diversity and Inclusion.

I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that we take gender equality very seriously.

Within JRF/JRHT, we have a very good track record of employing and promoting women. Indeed, 77% of our staff are women. 8 out of 16 directors (50%) are women and 33 out of 55 of our senior managers (60%) are women.

Our advert clearly states that everyone is welcome to apply irrespective of the categories mentioned, which are not meant to match word for word those in the Equality Act 2010. We have no intention of excluding either women or men on the basis of the ‘sex’ category they were assigned at birth. Rather, we recognise the limitation of the ‘sex’ category as it’s not inclusive of those people who do not fit neatly into the M/F categories.

We have chosen to use the term ‘gender identity’ in order to be more inclusive of people who define themselves as male, female, non-binary and others who do not fit into the ‘sex’ categories of M/F assigned at birth. Please see the UK government definitions of ‘Sex’ and ‘Gender’ outlined below.

I hope that this reassures you that our intention is to be inclusive and that we have no intent of excluding women from applying for these roles. We would also like to confirm that we have now included the category of sex to avoid misinterpretation in the future.

Anne Mwangi

Head of Diversity and Inclusion

Definitions
The UK government defines sex as:
referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions. Generally male or female and something that is assigned at birth.

The UK government defines gender as:
a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself and so the gender category someone identifies with may not match the sex they were assigned at birth.
Where an individual may see themselves as a man, a woman, as having no gender, or as having a non-binary gender – where people identify as somewhere on a spectrum between man and woman.

Did you get a response yet?

Are they? Where does it explicitly say "we are not inclusive of women"?

They have made a conscious decision to remove 'sex' as a protected characteristic.

MaidofKent I get that you don't agree with most responses on this thread, but how do you think your new employers would react if you did point out that they have omitted a protected characteristic from their list? Would they be receptive and fix it? Or would you get into trouble? Because I think their reaction would show whether they are an organisation truly committed to rooting out inequality or not, whether they are prepared to consider whether they may have got something wrong.

TBF I think they are just another example of a bunch of well-meaning but ultimately clueless people trying to be woke. The fact that it's the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, who are supposed to have a level of expertise on the causes of structural inequality, is pretty depressing, though.

Are they? Where does it explicitly say "we are not inclusive of women"? You could argue they are not inclusive of employing men either as it says pregnancy or maternity rather than pregnancy or parenthood.

I agree it's clumsily worded though.

I work at the JRF - I've been here 6 weeks now. At no point during the application process did I feel that I couldn't apply or work here because I am a woman. I feel that I was judged purely on my experience and my ability to do the job

Well that's just great.

However the point is that they are publicly displaying that they are not inclusive of women.

I work at the JRF - I've been here 6 weeks now. At no point during the application process did I feel that I couldn't apply or work here because I am a woman. I feel that I was judged purely on my experience and my ability to do the job.

I think you should apply, and if you get an interview you should mention how you noticed the error on their website, and the point KT made about inequality being largely down to the (female) sex someone was born.
They might be hugely impressed, then you'll get the job and be able to challenge all the sexist crap coming from Stonewall.

(Am too much of an optimist?..)

I think your email sticks to the point catgirl which is important.

Oh, thirdfiddle, it’s late and you have made my head hurt.

I worked there for a while. It was a weird environment. I didn’t like it at all. It was a long time ago though, and the people I worked with have moved on. Don’t want to say more in case I out myself.

Well meaning but sometimes muddled in their thinking just about sums the JRF up. Will be interesting to see what they reply.

I thought the JRF was a social reform foundation that tackled poverty and inequality - although I may be wrong on that. If I am correct, it is hugely important to recognise that female people experience higher levels of poverty because of their sex - because of discrimination but also because they are the ones most likely to take time away from the workplace because of childbirth and child rearing and caring responsibilities, and that this financial inequality lasts their whole lives. That is not something female bodied people identify into or with, it happens because of their sex.

They're saying they don't discriminate on gender identity i.e. on whether someone says they're man, woman, nonbinary, gender free, other. Employing a man over a better qualified woman would be discriminating on gender identity, as would employing a woman over a transman. A woman over a transwoman would not be discriminating on gender identity as they both supposedly have the same gender identity.

They also don't discriminate on transgender status i.e. whether or not you identify as sitting under the transgender umbrella. So employing a woman over a transwoman would be this kind of discrimination.

I don't think those between them preclude discriminating on sex. You could employ a nonbinary person with male anatomy above a better qualified nonbinary person with female anatomy. They have the same gender identity (nonbinary) and trans status (yes), but not the same sex.

They are also of course saying that they have taken advice from someone who thinks sex means the same as gender identity so putting gender identity instead of sex is clarifying rather than changing the categories. Which is worrying.

If you don’t plan to apply, you could write to the director of HR and CEO saying their exclusion of the protected characteristic of sex deterred you from applying because you felt women were not encouraged to apply. You can also point out that their fuckwitted inability to correctly list the EA2010 protected characteristics undermines their credibility as an effectively run organisation, which was another reason not to apply.

It's interesting they list gender identity and transgender status.

Combine the two and you can work out something useful, like their sex.

If their gender identity is female but their transgender status is trans, they are biologically male.

Yes, they can't leave out sex entirely. What if you don't consider you have a "gender identity"?