Fully outed myself as GC at woke workplace

Nicelegs, oh sorry I thought there were some differences between a limited company and a partnership

Yeah there are, but but nothing that has a bearing on gender critical feminism.

You're really no friend to women

I don't have an opinion about anything at work. I'm paid to do a job of work and not to have opinions and that's how it should be otherwise it soon becomes a free for all.
If I have no opinions I can then ask other people to please keep theirs to themselves as it's work and not a debating forum if they start going on about trans/politics/religion etc.

If having sympathy and supporting a group of people who are routinely discriminated against is considered bigotry, that rather shows that particular group still needs specific targeted support

I don’t want people with those views to work in the company and as far as is legally possible I will ensure that they don’t

What views, redtrees? How do you go about vetting for views?

If an employer dismisses someone who objects to a policy on the express basis that it has a particularly adverse effect on disabled people (ie the policy is discriminatory) then you’re looking at a discrimination claim founded on disability. (It doesn’t matter that the OP herself is not disabled).

Am I right in thinking that disability discrimination is an unlimited liability at an employment tribunal, ie the sky’s the limit in a payout? It would be most unwise to push through measures that indirectly discriminate against your disabled employees.

I guess you’re realising that it isn’t the GC brigade who need protection or have much to fear.

LOL

Do you work at the Guardian Redtrees

have discovered that the law provides a huge amount of protection for you

now you’re being really silly. Glad I don’t (imaginary) work for you with that attitude to equality law and employment rights.

I appreciate that you believe that GC is an acceptable position to hold, but on that we will have to disagree.

How would it not be? Any one idea that you are particularly offended by? That women have rights to organise politically as an oppressed sex class, maybe? Or that female health issues are important? Or is it just that forcing people to mouth sexist words that they don't believe to pretend that they think men are women is totes inclusive and you don't see why anyone wouldn't?

Nicelegs, oh sorry I thought there were some differences between a limited company and a partnership

McDuffy

I think redtrees' posts have really helped, though possibly not how they intended.

Because of them I've now got at least three more watertight reasons why it's a bad idea to introduce mandated pronouns if anyone challenges me (or asks discreetly!) and I feel reassured by the PPs posting who know more about legal scenarios and structures than me smile so thanks all.

What you mean OP is that you found some additional justifications to support your bigotry and have discovered that the law provides a huge amount of protection for you . I guess you’re realising that it isn’t the GC brigade who need protection or have much to fear.

My company is currently asking people to voluntarily disclose their ethnicity to HR at the moment. This is so that they can attempt to improve racial diversity, with the first step being measuring where we are now.

Less than 60% of people have done so. Are the 40+% who have declined to do so racist? Should they be disciplined?

I think gender expression should be up to the individual. I absolutely support laws that prevent harm or abuse or discrimination based on gender expression. It's just another form of misogyny and/or homophobia. That doesn't mean you have to believe that humans can literally change sex - that their gender expression is their sex. That is, bluntly, bonkers. Sex is a biological fact with real-life implications. Declaration alone can't change a person's sex. And gender is a social construct, largely used through history as a tool to keep women in their place. You can encourage freedom in gender expression, while also recognising that sex remains a key fact, especially for women.

That's all being gender critical is. Will there be some transphobes amongst GC women? Sure. There will also be some misogynists amongst gay men. It doesn't make most gay men, let alone all, misogynist, and it doesn't make gender critical perspectives inherently transphobic, either.

I would also point out that many trans activists (as distinct from trans people) are horribly misogynist. Do you regard that as unacceptable, and would you seek to have people with those views disciplined, too?

It's perfectly legitimate for women to point out that we have interests and indeed rights based on biology. To find that hateful is to deny the impact of biology on women's lives, which is arguably contra the Equality Act.

Sorry I'm late to the party, but I know @FantaOra IRL and she is not a troll, and does have knowledge and experience in these issues.

The fact you make that comment about it being different strikes me as someone who knows little about corporate structures or employment law.

It appears to me that Redtrees knows fuck all about fuck all! His/her/their/its attitude towards women is appalling!

(I can understand why you don't want to.)

I just won’t have them in my company

Not a fan of cognitive diversity then?

Among the many other facets of employment and corporate culture you seem a bit hazy on, there’s some pretty interesting evidence on how badly teams perform when they’re made up entirely of people who think the same way that you also seem unaware of. Good leaders want mixed teams, not clones who are afraid to voice their opinions.

As with all this stuff, my first question is “does it help?”. If I put my pronouns in my email, when I have a name only given to girls in this or any other culture, and babes in arms can tell I’m a woman, who does that actually help? As PPs have pointed out, it’s as likely to harm a trans person as it is to help them.

If I’m asked to use them, I will decline on the basis of already being outnumbered by men in my workplace by four to one, and not wishing to draw further attention that that fact.

But I doubt you’d want to work with, for example, a racist.

I work with a couple of homophobic people, and I’m bisexual. Of course I was upset when I learnt their views, but I didn’t expect my employer to do anything. They are entitled to their own opinions, even though I profoundly disagree with them.

Come on redtrees please answer the question.

There’s always the same argument that we should tolerate all viewpoints. But I doubt you’d want to work with, for example, a racist. Even if their actions were not sufficient to legally dismiss them you’d still expect your employer to try to do something. There are some viewpoints which are at odds with my company’s values (which are clearly set out and in the public domain) and I know that they are are at odds with my main investors. So I don’t want people with those views to work in the company and as far as is legally possible I will ensure that they don’t. It really is that simple. I appreciate that you believe that GC is an acceptable position to hold, but on that we will have to disagree.

The various blood curdling threats to the OP about her prospective unemployment: the OP states one of the specific reasons she gave for objecting was the effect on people with autism & without English as first language. If an employer dismisses someone who objects to a policy on the express basis that it has a particularly adverse effect on disabled people (ie the policy is discriminatory) then you’re looking at a discrimination claim founded on disability. (It doesn’t matter that the OP herself is not disabled). Similarly, potentially, with English language and race.

At least, this was the position in my days as an employment lawyer (some years ago now). Interested to know from anyone currently practising as an employment lawyer if this has changed?

OP: good for you. There are lots of good reasons for objecting to this. The point about the effect of women of constantly having to reiterate their sex - in every email - is a really important one.

Here it is - he had the audacity to be black when that wouldn't "enhance his career prospects at that organisation!" - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-53064929

(Just noting that 'not fitting in' was also a reason given by employers not to hire Black people, etc - there was a recent example of a church who gave this specific reason for not hiring a Black vicar/priest)

Redtrees
I don’t think it’s difficult to grasp that a person with views at odds with those of the company and who airs them at work is not going to fit in.

Do you grasp that when you said you would sack someone for voicing opinions that you personally found 'bigoted' (yet are still, still, unable to specify even ONE of these) that this is an entirely different thing from your comment I've quoted above? Or by "fitting in" do you actually mean "remaining employed"?

You speak so vaguely - it seems like you are a bit muddled about your own views, let alone being in a position to accurately establish those of others!