Stonewall statement on misinformation about the Diversity Champions Programme

Sorry if that didn't come across.

Of course it was men bullying the non conforming man in the very male dominated blokey workplace.

I just find it interesting how all of that sort of thing is somehow supposed to be women's fault. Apparently men like that listen to feminists, and not any old ones, the old school patriarchy is bad type. Who knew??!!

Procrastinator it's a first instance decision and therefore not binding, but even so, it doesn't tell us much. The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had told her employers she was intending to undergo gender reassignment as far back as 2017 - bringing her from that moment within the scope of s.7 Equality Act which defines gender reassignment as undergoing, proposing to undergo, and having undergone gender reassignment. That must be right: if someone announced an intention to transition and was bullied in the workplace and left soon after, the employer could not say "well, they didn't have time to transition as they were bullied out for announcing an intention to do so, therefore they are not protected."

The Claimant said, and the Tribunal accepted, that in March 2017 she had told her employer that she intended to transition, and that she was transitioning from male to female (para 19). She later in April and May described her current state as "gender fluid" but there is no suggestion she had renounced her stated intention to transition to female (and indeed she gave evidence to WESC describing herself as a trans woman). In June HR were describing her as transitioning and using 'she' pronouns.

The employer's paper-thin defence until mid proceedings was that the Claimant hadn't named the people who were bullying her and therefore they couldn't possibly be expected to deal with it.

It was only after proceedings began, at a case management hearing, that the employer - one hypothesises, shitting themselves and grasping for straws - noticed the words 'gender fluid' and tried to argue that if the claimant was gender fluid then she didn't count as trans for the purposes of the Equality Act.

That was absolutely doomed. Her stated intention to transition from March 2017 brought her within the s.7 definition whether or not she had ever followed it through.

However, it doesn't follow that a person who had not stated an intention to undergo gender reassignment but simply "identified" as non binary would be covered. It would be fact specific and would be up to the tribunal to make findings as to whether they were covered, depending on what they had said. "I identify as non binary" is unlikely to attract protection, whereas "I am undergoing a process of transition and currently view myself as non binary" quite possibly would.

It’s all very well going above and beyond the law but those actions must still be within the law.

This!
If Best Practice Guidance ends up compromising the protections afforded by the original law, it leaves the user in a worse situation then if they'd just done the bare minimum.

[quote KarmaViolet]There's an interesting post on it here legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/05/22/to-boldly-go-why-going-beyond-the-law-risks-unlawful-discrimination/[/quote]
I thought that immediately to go beyond the law would possibly diminish the rights of other groups protected by law. Hmm who could they be ..

That JLR case is being made to do a lot of heavy lifting. I find that interesting.

I’m mulling over how an organisation that gets a great deal of funding from the public purse, directly and indirectly, can react to FOIs as if they were somehow an insult. That really is quite odd. They might be annoying, but institutions have to deal with them as best they can because accountability is still a thing, no matter how great you think you are.

NiceGerbil I suspect you’re overthinking it. The usual pack mentality is picking on someone because they are perceived as different.

Thanks to everyone for the information.

I think it's additionally difficult to assess matters when so much detail is unknown and some of the parties involved have a general history of poor form for engaging with arguments and accurate reporting.

Hmm jaguar site says

'Men dominate the UK automotive industry, filling 91% of engineering roles'

I still think that these shadowy coordinated women are to blame.

A question on the jaguar bullying case.

I've not been able to find whether the colleagues who worked with this engineer and who harrassed and bullied were male or female, nor what their stance on queer theory is.

It's possible it was a bunch of feminists, or a bunch of men who had been radicalised by women who don't believe it's a good idea to change laws and words in ways that will be detrimental to women.

It's also possible that it was a blokey workplace and it was bog standard men doing this. That seems unlikely though if what I've read on Twitter is true.

The jaguar case was about bullying.

Sounds like the employee had a terrible time.

No one should be bullied.

'A gender-fluid worker has won an employment tribunal against Jaguar Land Rover (JLR).

Ms R Taylor brought claims against the company, saying she had suffered abuse and a lack of support.

She successfully argued she suffered harassment and discrimination because of gender reassignment.

In a statement, JLR apologised to Ms Taylor for her experiences during her employment and said it continued to strive to improve in this area.'

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-54180794

There is some stuff about bogs but don't know whether the men were being awful in the gents or what.

Not read all the posts but will !

I liked this:

'We believe these attacks are threadbare and deliberately organised and coordinated to undermine support for our work to ensure every LGBTQ+ employee can thrive at work.'

Problem is that believing something is different to it being true. A longrunning theme in all of this!

Organised and coordinated? Come on let's have it then? Organised and coordinated by who? A person? Some groups? Mumsnet
Nice scary sounding statement. With no evidence at all. Not even a hint.

I like the idea as well that it's about all the letters. Homophobia! Pah. Roping in groups with loads of people who are utterly fucked off with them, in their 'defence'.

Use whatever words you like Stonewall, you haven't actually convinced anyone of anything. The opposite in fact.

In most contexts, gender identity is an appropriate, inclusive, and well-understood term

No it isn’t.

In most contexts, gender identity is an appropriate, inclusive, and well-understood term, so – in line with the UK Government and with international standards – we talk about gender identity in our everyday communications. Similarly, when we describe the Equality Act’s protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, we refer to ‘gender identity’ to explain who is covered by the law and how they are protected, as the EHRC does in their Code of Practice.

Nice conflation of “gender reassignment” and “gender identity”, with the suggestion that EHRC uses gender ID in the CoP as interchangeable with the PC of gender reassignment.

"Dear motorists, it's absolutely fine to drive at 60mph in this 40mph zone! Our interpretation of the speed limit is higher than that outdated sign, and anyway we're lobbying to change it officially! Get ahead of the law!"

It’s all very well going above and beyond the law but those actions must still be within the law.

Stonewall are idiots. You’ve all explained this very well.

Agree with JustAWoman many employees go above and beyond the law, when they offer benefits such as:
Contractual sick pay
Holiday over the statutory minimum
More pension than the auto enrollment rate
Paid carers leave etc

Stonewall's issue is that, according to recent reports, they are misrepresenting the law and through various indexes incentivising other organisations to do the same.

I agree it means very little. Whatever label you want to adopt for your identity Stonewall are still just insisting all single sex exemptions are actually a choice.

Stonewall have just reaffirmed, in writing, that:

1. They know what the EA PCs are but are deliberately using the wrong ones.
2. They still encourage employers to go beyond the law.
3. They consider use of the FOI Act an 'attack'. But they definitely don't try to suppress free speech.

And they thought this would help?

Also I counted the mentions of the word 'women'. Zero. Which given the basis of the current coverage is the attempt to undermine women's rights, I find... interesting.

Link to the Taylor v Jaguar judgment

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fc8d559d3bf7f7f5c134ad3/Ms_R_Taylor_v_Jaguar_Land_Rover_Limited_-1304471.2018-_Reasons.pdf

Paragraph 173 onwards is useful. In short, it appears that this particular ET (they do not set binding authority) found that "gender reassignment" covers all those who have "moved away from their birth gender" in some form or another.

They also concluded that the legislation is ambiguous.

I am not an employment lawyer, but this decision carries no weight in law as it is not binding authority. For Stonewall to present it as such is misleading.

[quote KarmaViolet]There's an interesting post on it here legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/05/22/to-boldly-go-why-going-beyond-the-law-risks-unlawful-discrimination/[/quote]
That’s a much more informed and coherent presentation of what I was trying to say, thank you. Going above and beyond the law risks trampling on the rights of others.