Help - work misrepresenting EA2010 & bringing in Gendered Intel

28 replies

CheeryTreeBlossom · 18/08/2020 12:04

Looking for some help on discussing some things at work.
While I feel it is time to put my head above the parapet I do want to ensure this is done in the most clear and factual manner to reduce any blowback. I've tried searching on Mumsnet and wider interwebs but not found exactly what I'm looking for.

I've seen that my organisation (which is in the public sector) misstates the protected characteristic of sex as Gender. Is this a breach of their public sector duty? Can someone point out somewhere that specifically states that so that I could send a link to them that is from an official govt source?

Also my work is bringing in Gendered intelligence to do training, which is something I've feared for a while. I recall seing threads discussing issues with their materials and I know they were key in lobbying on GRA reform. Can someone point me to concrete examples where they have sexist/factually incorrect materials especially if it misstates legal requirements around equality act/employee provisions (e.g. single sex provisions). I want to challenge the choice of provider, I am sure they were chosen due to personal recommendation rather than any objective assessment of their training materials.

I don't think I would be fired for it but honestly these days I feel you can't be too careful
Maya's appeal can't come soon enough.

OP posts:

stumbledin · 18/08/2020 17:59

This thread might help as it covered a similar issue www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3994043-Is-this-right-Council-not-including-sex

But basically what they are doing is not in line with the law or they are actually flouting the law!

Gender is NOT a protected characteristic.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4

And if they are bringing in Gendered Itelligence say you think they should be in Fawcett of Centre for Women's Justice as they are showing anti sex bias! And they are entrenching that bias by inviting in a group known to be hostile to women's sex based rights.

(Keep copies of any emails sent in relation to this.)

beargrass · 18/08/2020 14:27

From a child protection perspective - especially if you are public sector - maybe ask if your employer thinks working with a group that holds a furtive swimming activity (there is no location given) for ages 8 to 25 is in keeping with your safeguarding policies:

genderedintelligence.co.uk/swimming

"Wear what you want to swim, so long as your bottom half is covered."

DianasLasso · 18/08/2020 12:35

Re. the first point, I found a simple statement of "new guidance looks great, except for one minor detail - the Equalities Act lists as protected characteristics "sex" and "gender reassignment." They changed the documents.

As for tackling the choice of gendered intelligence, this is a bit trickier. I might be tempted to say "can we maybe have a broader initiative to cover all bases, including race, sex, disability, etc?" and suggest training from ACAS specifically on the legal framework. So you don't attack GI directly, you just point out that their remit isn't wide enough.

Unflip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread