Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

EDI training at work - is this correct?

34 replies

Bananasaur · 22/10/2021 19:01

The following statement appeared in some recent training: 'Men and women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex. This includes those who have, are, or will be undergoing gender reassignment.'

I'm confused. Is the implication that someone who has had gender reassignment is entitled to the protections of their 'new' sex? I.e. gender reassignment is sex reassignment? Is this the meaning in law?

Sex and gender reassignment are listed separately elsewhere with all the other protected characteristics. However, the training also goes into gender identity and pronouns at length, and gets more confusing. Terms are not defined and it states we are assigned a sex and gender at birth based on physical characteristics. It includes intersex people under the trans umbrella and uses sex, gender, gender identity etc interchangeably. It also talks about gender aligning with sex - how can two different things be aligned? Isn't that like trying to get my religion (atheist) to align with my shoe size (4)?

I've done a lot of reading around this previously and am really trying to understand it fully but this seems to have been written by someone with a shakier grasp than me.

I work in science.

I am in the process of sticking my head above the parapet for that if nothing else. Senior leadership, HR etc are all very much of the 'it's controversial... be kind' mindset. Any suggestions on an approach that is most likely to garner results would be gratefully received.

We have a huge gender pay gap.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
GAHgamel · 22/10/2021 22:26

@PaleBlueMoonlight

The following statement appeared in some recent training: 'Men and women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex. This includes those who have, are, or will be undergoing gender reassignment.'

It reads correctly to me. Men and women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex. This is the case (that they are protected on the basis of their sex) even if they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Ie this doesn’t mean that they have lost their sex based protection.

I am not saying that they aren’t confused! Or even that what it says is what they think they are saying, just that it reads as accurate to me.

The wording is a bit ambiguous, depending on how you're understanding the word "includes". Men and women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex, and those who fall under the gender reassignment protections are included in those sex-based protections, but according to their birth sex, not the one that aligns with the gender they are wishing to be assigned to. In addition, we need to mention the single sex exceptions, where it is possible to discriminate on the basis of sex if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

So technically correct, but needs a bit if caveating.

christinarossetti19 · 22/10/2021 22:00

In terms of how to challenge, it seems that the most effective way is to simplify matters ie to refer to the Equality Act and its protected characteristics.

So, as you say, it's the sex-based pay gap which needs to be looked at and thought about.

christinarossetti19 · 22/10/2021 21:58

The training was correct that sex and gender reassignment are protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with gender identity, preferred pronouns, DSD (disorders of sexual development ie intersex) etc.

In terms of the law, it's all much less complicated than Stonewall and the like would have us all believe.

And many trans people dislike the shift towards 'gender identity' as it blurs their legal status and rights under current legislation.

Original poster
Bananasaur · 22/10/2021 21:21

Thank you for the transcripts!

OP posts:
EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 22/10/2021 21:19

@Bananasaur

Good shout on the Nolan podcast! Have read reports but need to listen to it this weekend properly and then point them towards that.

The company EDI initiative is led by the US, which I guess has some bearing on things....

FPFW has produced condensed transcripts of all 10 episodes:

fairplayforwomen.com/stonewall-transcripts/

Original poster
Bananasaur · 22/10/2021 21:18

And good idea to highlight some good bits of the training. Just need to find them Wink

OP posts:
Original poster
Bananasaur · 22/10/2021 21:17

Good shout on the Nolan podcast! Have read reports but need to listen to it this weekend properly and then point them towards that.

The company EDI initiative is led by the US, which I guess has some bearing on things....

OP posts:
Original poster
Bananasaur · 22/10/2021 21:14

In the very short section on sex, the training conflated equal pay with the gender pay gap.

Definitely think an intern wrote this...

OP posts:
EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 22/10/2021 21:14

@OperationDessertStorm

We have an intersex awareness training session coming up - it’s at least the second specific one in two years (plus all the other LBGT+ ones). This speaker doesn’t have pronouns and mentions an interest in feminism when googled so I have a tiny hope she’s sensible.
I'm so far (joyfully) wrong on 2 points (Number 10 Office's letter of support for LGB Alliance and Margaret Atwood).

I'm now going for item 3 on which I'd be happy to be wrong but I'd be very surprised if this were an actual DSD/VSD/congenital differences in sex development/intersex awareness session as opposed to someone putting forward a spectrum argument and yet again co-opting a population that has asked not to be used in such discussions.

PaleBlueMoonlight · 22/10/2021 21:12

I would maybe consider approaching that bit as, “of course this bit is right [explain why]”, then be quizzical about how other things they say don’t quite tie in with that.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 22/10/2021 21:12

OP - given that the company have been comprehensively Stonewalled have you managed to suggest one or two key episodes of the Nolan podcast? They're very clear about the incoherence and dodgy tactics being used?

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09yjp0d

Original poster
Bananasaur · 22/10/2021 21:05

Ooh that's promising! Though very specific training...

OP posts:
OperationDessertStorm · 22/10/2021 21:04

We have an intersex awareness training session coming up - it’s at least the second specific one in two years (plus all the other LBGT+ ones). This speaker doesn’t have pronouns and mentions an interest in feminism when googled so I have a tiny hope she’s sensible.

Original poster
Bananasaur · 22/10/2021 21:03

I'm challenging everything! Grin Going down fighting... It's a real struggle to get the company to understand the difference between equity and equality.

OP posts:
Original poster
Bananasaur · 22/10/2021 20:56

I agree the superficial meaning isn't incorrect. I guess it's not clear which sex they think applies when considering alongside someone with gender reassignment? Are they saying a trans woman being excluded from a female-only programme on the basis of sex would be discrimination? Or that it would be discrimination to exclude a trans man from the same programme?

OP posts:
Leafstamp · 22/10/2021 20:42

@Bananasaur

Oh and we're going to have a Women in Leadership programme open to 'all genders'.
Oh good grief.

Please tell me you are going to challenge that aswell?

Leafstamp · 22/10/2021 20:41

@PaleBlueMoonlight

The following statement appeared in some recent training: 'Men and women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex. This includes those who have, are, or will be undergoing gender reassignment.'

It reads correctly to me. Men and women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex. This is the case (that they are protected on the basis of their sex) even if they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Ie this doesn’t mean that they have lost their sex based protection.

I am not saying that they aren’t confused! Or even that what it says is what they think they are saying, just that it reads as accurate to me.

Agreed. They have the right to be treated the same as others in the same sex class.
PaleBlueMoonlight · 22/10/2021 20:38

The following statement appeared in some recent training: 'Men and women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex. This includes those who have, are, or will be undergoing gender reassignment.'

It reads correctly to me. Men and women are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex. This is the case (that they are protected on the basis of their sex) even if they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Ie this doesn’t mean that they have lost their sex based protection.

I am not saying that they aren’t confused! Or even that what it says is what they think they are saying, just that it reads as accurate to me.

McDuffy · 22/10/2021 20:16

@Bananasaur

Oh and we're going to have a Women in Leadership programme open to 'all genders'.
We had that at work, I was asked to be a mentor but deleted the email as it said women included non-binary assigned Hmm female at birth and transwomen at any stage of transition. I would want to mentor someone who has and has always had the disadvantage of being female.
Original poster
Bananasaur · 22/10/2021 20:13

Oh and we're going to have a Women in Leadership programme open to 'all genders'.

OP posts:
Leafstamp · 22/10/2021 19:59

@Bananasaur

Thank you for all the links! Much appreciated.

It does almost feel like the intent of the training was to confuse people enough that they would just give up.

It’s a well known strategy used by those in power.
Original poster
Bananasaur · 22/10/2021 19:57

Thank you for all the links! Much appreciated.

It does almost feel like the intent of the training was to confuse people enough that they would just give up.

OP posts:
Original poster
Bananasaur · 22/10/2021 19:55

I think bafflement and endless questions could help! Although slightly worried they may direct me to even more confused comms from Stonewall etc. Or try to explain it themselves. When HR tried to explain the difference between gender and sex last time someone had to step in because they'd confused sex with sexuality the whole way through.

I think the wording about wanting to get it right and being puzzled is good... and true. I actually started my journey to this point by wanting to convince myself. But the more I read the less convinced I became. Much like my experience with religion, actually.

I did try an email to my boss mainly composed of questions but she thought it was 'inflammatory'. Maybe the questions were too obviously rhetorical though. So hard to get the tone right! All feels very Emperor's New Clothes. Maybe I should add that to the EDI reading list we've been given.

The training was also wishy washy on race... nothing about structural oppression, just whether you felt happy when you thought about experiences related to your race.

I think that training course has actually de-skilled me.

OP posts:
Wildfart · 22/10/2021 19:47

This training causes absolute confusion doesn't it?

Is that the intention? Training that leaves everyone baffled is a waste of money and time.

EDI has become a gigantic farce.

Leafstamp · 22/10/2021 19:45

I like to roll this one at too where employers are concerned:

www.gov.uk/personal-data-my-employer-can-keep-about-me

No mention of gender or gender identity. Sex only.

Swipe left for the next trending thread