I've just come out of a work event - LGBT terminology and pronouns... and lesbian erasure

How did it go, OP?

Nappy, if you look across the labour market, aren't an awful lot of people overqualified for the job they do?

Precisely. Maybe that has something to do with the massive expansion of tertiary education which has happened during the last two decades.

I am not trying to change your mind Autumn. I think we should let this thread get back to its original topic.

Nappy, if you look across the labour market, aren't an awful lot of people overqualified for the job they do?

If you look across the labour market you see that ethnic minorities are often (not always) over qualified for the jobs they do. The idea that they are just being nodded in to fill quotas is laughable. The under qualified candidates I see hired tend to be those who are thought to 'fit in' so the recruitment panel see all sorts of things in them that aren't there on paper.

I've blatantly heard people say "I really want a black woman for this job".

I've also heard, in a female dominated organisation, "we've got to adjust the balance or we'll get in trouble". Of course organisations are struggling with this kind of thing.

I also think it is a dangerous myth that organisations are employing under qualified ethnic minorities just to fill quotas.

Nope - I was once encouraged by HR to employ someone I wasn't confident in. They not only turned out to be a very tricky person to manage (rude to my boss, refused to stay behind, told senior team members that he didn't like what they'd asked so would do things his way, kept trying to sell his wife's diet pills at work...). He didn't have the skills for the job - and didn't want to learn either.

Nappy “ very much doubt any organisation would advertise a job only in a BME magazine unless it was a role that required someone from a specific ethnic group and came under special exemptions in the equality act. ”

That’s what they told me. It’s not a role where race would have any relevance.

If it makes a difference, it was about 8 years ago.

I do get the impression you are talking about large organisations though.

I very much doubt any organisation would advertise a job only in a BME magazine unless it was a role that required someone from a specific ethnic group and came under special exemptions in the equality act.

I also think it is a dangerous myth that organisations are employing under qualified ethnic minorities just to fill quotas. Organisations are trying to make sure they have a wider field of candidates to choose from so try to advertise in a wider range of places. There will always be individual instances but generally line managers tend not to want to overlook candidates they think they can do a job for one they think they can't just to fill 'quotas' as they have to deal with the fall out.

I would also add that the insult T*RF is misogynistic and almost always levelled at women

This insult has been deliberately crafted to dismiss women as radical and irrelevant. Like so much of the language used by trans lobbyists, that is a deceptive inversion of reality. The radicals are those who think men can transform into women and vice versa and that society should be remodelled to accommodate this. The radicals think drag queens should be in primary schools. The radicals think people should be sacked for a belief in biological sex. The radicals believe in a sinister, Orwellian control of language and compelled speech. Those who object to this agenda are not radicals. They are Conservatives, left wing feminists and people who believe in Enlightenment values, freedom of speech and debate. It is becoming harder to shut us down by using mendacious language.

I would also add that the insult T*RF is misogynistic and almost always levelled at women - you don't hear people calling men that even when they're making exactly the same comments about the sexism that often occurs in trans activism.

If they referred to 'cis' women, you might also want to challenge them on that if you find it offensive - the point feels a bit more niche than the T word, but there's a growing voice of objection about it and there was an article in the law gazette the other day about trans guidance for judges being offensive because it uses 'cis' (can't link from my phone but there's another MN thread on it somewhere).

My main objection to cis would be that no-one should be assuming my gender (or whether I feel I have one that I identify with). Obviously, referring to 'cis privilege' is also a fantastic way to shut down debate and silence the voices as of non-trans people, although I wouldn't be saying that to my woke employer!

Fire I don’t think people screaming “get the L out” at Pride agree with you.

Lesbians are included in 'Gay'.

Because that just so boooooooring (channel Kevin the teenager) and doesn't shock the grandparents/startle the vicar/scare the horses.

“ Why can't people just get on with their jobs, who cares whether or not your straight/gay/no or anything else.”

This.

Straight pride? Didn't know such a thing existed!
Next we need a tea milk no sugar pride.

It's all a bit much, glad I'm out of it these days. Why can't people just get on with their jobs, who cares whether or not your straight/gay/no or anything else.

Bovary, it’s so predictable though. It can’t be filed under unintended consequences which in turn makes me think they’re looking for a person who thinks a particular way and they hope they can find that by using skin colour or ethnic origin.

I don't want anyone thinking I got the job on anything other than merit so all those jobs, I had to reject
AutumnRose
Absolutely agree with you about this. I think it is one of the myriad unpredicted negative consequences of so many superficially 'positive ' policies which seem to be entrenching an unhealthy obsession with identity politics.

I just don't want to be sacked for not being able to keep my mouth shut!

It's a bold move, OP.

I had similar concerns about my career and the way I handled it in my organisation was to focus solely on the offensive things I was objecting to (the use of T*RF, the fact lesbians were left out, etc) so they have something concrete an non-political to address.

Personally, I wouldn't go into whether Resisters' tweets were offensive or send links to terfisaslur, etc - if you do, there's a good chance you'll be labelled as a bigot (especially if the organiser speaks to the charity about your concerns). You can always bring these points up later, but I wouldn't put this level of detail into your initial complaint as you're detracting from how you, as a female employee, were personally affected by the offensive language used about women while in your workplace. That's the bit an employer should be particularly concerned about, along with not being inclusive of lesbians.

IMO, the best way to get your concerns addressed is to approach the organiser from a position of innocent questioning of the shockingly sexist and misogynist comments included in the presentation.

My advice would be not to look too informed at this point because your 'political' position will be used against and will detract from the offensiveness of the comments.

You don't have to out yourself as GC to challenge these comments. If you're happy to, then that's great. But personally, I would think very carefully about outing myself in an organisation that is woke enough to put on this event in the first place. Especially if you like your job and need your income.

I'm not saying don't speak up - just be careful. There are several amazing, brave women who have spoken up, but I'm sure none of them wanted to lose their jobs and become poster children for free speech - some can't even take their own children out in public for fear of their safety, which is a situation none of us want to be in.

I don't really want a flag - the world doesn't need to have confirmation of my sex or sexuality.

Ok. Took all of ten seconds, but horizontal black and white striped do indeed represent "straight pride" Not sure why that's needed, seeing as straight is the norm.

It's logical if the point is celebration of ones own sexuality. As soon as things like Pride ceased to be about rights etc, and became a celebration of public sexuality, or as soon as it's seen as important to take pride in one's own sexual expression, it makes sense to include everyone.

Really well written, OP.

What are your demands? They can have them, so can we!