UNISON all women shortlists

When they say "unlawful harassment" they are referring to criminal law.
No. Harassment on grounds of a protected characteristic is covered in the Equality Act (so civil law).

Again, the guide doesn't say that misgendering is unlawful harassment. It says it may constitute unlawful harassment. It is covered under employment law as employers are liable if they fail to prevent harassment between employees. I would be very surprised if Unison were giving advice on criminal law as that is outside of their remit.

OP, even if it were a man (not a TW) compared to an AHF, you haven't supplied any information which would support sex discrimination.

We have gone off-topic, I appreciate that. So i'd like to reiterate my support for AWS, show solidarity with CLPs like Stockport and Vauxhall and people like Dave Prentis who are speaking out against those who only support women when it's convenient for them.

Also I think it's yet to be proven that misgendering actually does constitute unlawful harassment. That's why I don't like it being stayed in the Unison guidance as if it's fact. It comes across as an intimidation tactic.

I disagree. When they say "unlawful harassment" they are referring to criminal law.

I don't think two employees can break employment law between each other. Employment law deals with employer / employee relations.

Harassment in the workplace is likely to be gross misconduct under most workplace disciplinary policies but I don't think there's an employment law it would break.

Workplace harassment would be dealt with under employment law. This is the context of the unison guide.

Harassment is criminal law, not employment law.

But to clarify we're not talking about criminal law. We're talking about employment law.

Yes, the law should get involved if someone deliberately sets out to bully someone in the workplace. I don't believe TWAW but if a man wants me to call him Jane then live and let live I say.

And should the law have ever got involved in 'don't say words that hurt people's feelings' and come to regard 'hurtful' speech as something that can be criminal?

Compelling my speech and compelling me to pretend a belief I really don't hold and see as actively harmful is also hurtful and may be harassment.

We're back to why does one group of people matter more than another when it's the same behaviour apparently unacceptable? And should law in a sane country ever compel one group to actively service another group against their wills?

It doesn't say repeatedly but neither does it say misgendering is a hate crime. It says it may be harrassment and to meet that definition it would have to be deliberate and repeated.

The guide also says:

"If you do make a mistake, apologise and move on. Don’t make a big
thing of it."

So it absolutely recognises that people may say things which are unintentionally upsetting to a transperson and that's not a hate crime.

Whole PDF guide is here:

www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2018/03/24861.pdf

"Misgendering someone or using their previous name (sometimes called deadnaming) is hurtful and may be unlawful harassment."

Not great implications for trans widows who want their own history respected.

No it doesn't say repeatedly.

Hence me thinking it's misleading.

And of course misgendering someone could be harrassment if you
do it deliberately and repeatedly to cause that person distress. That's what harrassment is
I haven't read the policy but does it say "repeatedly " or does it just say misgender, implying said once is a hate crime?

I work on the basis that I agree with everything else Phonic.

I have been a supporter of AWS in the past but they may as well not exist now.

Don't understand this logic at all. Because transwoman are able to access AWS, we should get rid of them and potentially go back to a situation where less than 10% of MPs are women. How does that make sense?

And of course misgendering someone could be harrassment if you do it deliberately and repeatedly to cause that person distress. That's what harrassment is. Being gender critical doesn't give us free reign to be horrible to people.

Who remembers black sections?

The criteria for membership of those was quite potty and drawn straight from Apartheid South Africa: You were black if you were black in the opinion of a party officer. HK Chinese could be black, but not Japanese who were white. Turks were not black, but Greek Cypriots were, etc.

Unison's guidance on "How to be a trans ally" says that if you misgender somebody it "may be unlawful harassment".

Women are fucked. I have been a supporter of AWS in the past but they may as well not exist now.

Their policy of TWAW makes every word hypocritical nonsense.