First 'chat with HR'

They asked me to send links. I am sending the charity commission link and if I can find it the one about uni of essex. any other recommendations for factual, legal, evidenced docs?

@Iwasonlytryingtohelp here are links I posted in the Mermaids charity commission appeal against LGB Alliance thread

LINK SUMMARY

Mermaids Appeal against LGBAlliance
Mermaids grounds of appeal
9.6 “LGB Alliance has repeatedly targeted registered LGBT rights charities including Mermaids, as well as Stonewall (registered charity no. 1101255), LGBT Foundation (registered charity no. 1070904), GIRES (registered charity no. 1068137)”

Charity Commission full decision to register LGB Alliance:
Decision to register LGBAlliance as a charity

Register of Charities:
Register of Charities Mermaids
Register of Charities LGBAlliance
Register of Charities LGBT Foundation
Register of Charities Stonewall
Register of Charities GIRES

Charity Commission Guidance:
Charities Act 2011
Legal Underpinnings
Campaigning and political activity guidance
litigation a guide for trustees

Equalities and Human Rights Commission EHRC guidance:
EHRC - Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics
EHRC Chair, Baroness Kishwer Falkner response to the LGBT Consortium's open letter “Defending the right to believe that sex is immutable in no way impacts on our commitment to uphold the rights of trans people.”

News and threads on the mermaids appeal:
Lesbian and Gay news legal commentary
THREAD by Barrister Barbara Rich @BarbaraRich_law
THREAD by Andy Lewis Quackometer@lecanardnoir
THREAD by Barrister Allison Bailey @BluskyeAllison
Times article - Mermaids against LGB Alliance

LGB Alliance new trustees:
LGB Alliance appoints trustees
Article re Professor Robert Wintemute who drafted 29 guiding LGBT rules “Yogyakarta Principles” Now a trustee for LGBA. Wintemute, “I would have had to consider the potential for conflict with women’s rights, but I didn’t.” Neither, so far as he knows, did anyone else at the meeting at which the Principles were drafted. “Women’s rights weren’t raised.”

It’s harassment pure and simple. I hope the OP points this out to the HR dept.

HR work for the employer, not the women who work there. OP has been accused of transphobia in the workplace. This is a very serious allegation, with potentially serious consequences for OP, that HR are clearly investigating on behalf of the employer. As an employee, any time HR want to chat, you need to seek advice and to protect yourself very carefully. HR are not your friend, they are there to protect the business interests of the company. HR will act illegally and immorally if they have to. I am sure many of us have had experiences of sex discrimination that has been facilitated/ignored/covered up by HR. It's nothing personal about the people who work in HR, it's about competing interests and women protecting themselves against discrimination in the work place. I hope OP seeks advice from ACAS/union and protects herself.

Without fail this board talks about women in HR with utter contempt and loathing.

And why is that, I wonder?

Many women here have been utterly shafted by HR departments.

As a long time poster here I just want to comment on the feminist attitude to women working in HR. HR is one of the most successful and influential professional services careers women have, we dominate the profession.

Without fail this board talks about women in HR with utter contempt and loathing.

LGB Alliance have just recently been granted charity status so have very recently been thoroughly scrutinised
Stonewall have recently: been reported as having given misleading advice - advising on what they'd like the law to be, rather than on what it is; been dropped by EHRC amongst others and the Equalities minister is calling for government departments to leave their Diversity Champion schemes

Suggesting LGB Alliance seems the more logical choice

Well done OP - I think you did brilliantly. The only thing that I would add is that one of things about general equality duty and the EA is to:
"Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not"
This is also highlighted as one of the issues in the Essex University case and in a wider sense to the issues relating to 'no debate' that seem to have infiltrated organisations. My interpretation is that all people should be able to share and question policies in a respectful and useful way without fear. This also leads onto another point made on the Essex report that people who hold GC views are far more likely to be women and if they are not able to air their views (albeit, in a respectable and polite way) then this can be construed as indirect discrimination.

Also... good on you OP. From what you've said it sounds more like they want to learn and make good decisions, and less about investigating you.

Perhaps it is worth making it clear that there are two completely different aspects to speech / free speech -

(1) The ability to have a sensible debate in meetings and when talking with HR about how the company should deal with the issues.

and

(2) Your commitment (I expect and presume) to treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect and in accordance with both the law and company policies.

The former cannot be allowed to be confused with the latter.

OP, you've done brilliantly and nothing you've said is even slightly wrong.

Well done Op sounds like you handled it brilliantly

Employers keep saying that they want the whole authentic employee to turn up at work and provide a diversity of perspectives - and then they behave in a way that actively prevents it.

You did brilliantly OP, well done. You have inspired me to get on with writing to my HR people to ask them to amend their very muddled Equalities Policy Guidance which has Stonewall written all over it.

Based on what you've written it sounds really well received? We can't ever assume HR are up to speed and you provided them with really valuable input and up to date information. Well done.

The other thing is the trustees of lgba. They have just announced 5 new trustees. They include Prof Robert wintermute, a human rights law academic. He was one of the signatories of the yogyakarta principles. Others are a labour peer, kathleen stock the philosophy Prof, and others from the media. OBE, Prof, Lord. They are respectable ppl in their fields. It sounds like you have covered everything already.

Why does the company need to 'align itself' with anyone in the first place?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/critics-call-for-law-firms-to-quit-stonewall-bq82xf69j?shareToken=68bcb8e9e1609ebbe91317228eb26408

Here you go in case you need it

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3cd95f0a-c3ac-11eb-8601-6a2ece3e4634?shareToken=a20205efc4e9175855d4451d7162d1cb

There's a cracking article in the Times Law section today on Stonewall. There is a share token on a thread somewhere on here if you don't have a subscription.

It sounds like you are being informally investigated. Do be sure to follow up the meeting with a summary of what was said and retrospectively ask for confirmation of the nature of the meeting.