The Times view on Stonewall and corporate diversity guidelines 22/10/21

Ah no, still closed but the existing comments are back.

I withdraw my rant above as far as it pertains to this Times article. But rant still stands for all the other spaces, real life and virtual, that hold the mutually incompatible positions of silencing debate while claiming no one minds.

Times article was open for comments, now closed and existing comments cannot be seen. Before that, the comments were overwhelmingly respectfully acknowledging trans people's rights and identities but raising the many reasons why including anyone who self-identifies as a women in this measure is detrimental to female people.

Yay! More silencing the evidence that a significant number of people have valid concerns that are nothing to do with bigotry or transphobia.

Easy to say everyone agrees with you when you can suppress the evidence that they don't.

But one has to wonder why it seems easier to censor objections than simply make the, presumably strong and clear, case as to why they are not in reality a problem. After all, why would someone with good arguments not make them?

I am pleased that the story has now been covered, and the Times chose to write a leader about it.

However it is frustrating how so few women are actually willing to stand up and be counted on this subject. Yes I know people are worried about their jobs (for which they are probably being paid 75p in the pound compared to men), but unless women are willing to speak up (and no, not only on MN), the FCA, Stonewall and male patriarchy will continue their march.

I really can’t imagine the treasury just dissolving the fca. That is pretty much what happened in 2013 when the fsa was dissolved for a twin peaks structure - the fca and pra. It was a significant undertaking! Reprimanded and asked to rectify and perhaps undertake a review more likely.

LBC discussion now

As previously mentioned the Legal Feminist Response to FCA Consultations is very clear; the proposals, if adopted by the FCA would leave it vulnerable to an accusation that it had breached its Public Sector Equality Duty set out in the Equality Act 2010. In addition the proposals appear to have forgotten about the existing mandatory disclosure regime in the Companies Act 2006, particularly section 414C(8).

The Legal Feminist 'collective' is of the opinion that we have formed the view that the proposals outlined in the CP are flawed, perhaps fatally, in view of the difficulty of reconciling them with other laws and regulations in these specialist areas.

Which is a polite way of saying however drafted these proposals was, well, a bit amateurish and didn't properly research the subject (perhaps driven by the ideology rather than respect for the law and regulation).

The consequence is that the FCA's proposals are likely unlawful and would place Companies in the awkward position of being in likely breach of the law if they adopted the FCA's requirements. So in effect the FCA could easily render itself an organisation promoting unlawful activity. I suspect that The Treasury (which the FCA is responsible-to) would step in to dissolve it rapidly and start-up a new organisation untarnished by any staff from the former FCA, through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). I think the FCA works to a 'Charter' and if it could be shown to be in breach of its own mission, the current organisation could be wound-up and immediately replaced by another.

And, I mean, they've recently closed the option to like as a guest?

My 'likes' aren't registering any more either. I did wonder if it's because I'm reading as a guest? I get the paper version rather than digital, but obviously follow links when kindly provided.

And someone clearly went on a reporting spree the other day - an entire conversation deleted.

Is anyone else having problems with liking comments on the Times website?

I'm pretty sure that comments I liked later on didn't have a "like" from me. Also, a lot of comments are being deleted. There's speculation there's mass reporting going on to get comments taken down but I haven't seen any direct evidence of that.

Why would they think that you can just import practices from other countries without considering the different laws which are in place in different countries?

Because it feels like people keep using phrases and mantras that have meaning in other countries but are inappropriate in a UK context?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4347395-Against-White-Feminism?msgid=110745933

Same here @NapoleonOzmolysis

Is anyone else having problems with liking comments on the Times website?
I've been making a point of doing so on articles like this one but the last couple of days they are not registering. Is it just me?

The Legal Feminist submission give a great example of how women can fight back on this. If you’re in a firm with ‘gender targets’ and the targets are based on gender identity not sex, start identifying as either non-binary or prefer not to say.

So my company has a target for at least 40% of senior staff to be women. If the survey asks for my sex, I answer correctly. If it asks what gender I identify with, I’m either ‘prefer not to say’, ‘other’ or ‘non-binary’. If they choose to make a target based on nebulous identity, I won’t count and they’ll fail their target.

If enough senior women started doing this, in confidential staff surveys, firms would quickly wake up to the issue.

FWS shared this on FB. I don't know if it's related but it is certainly apposite

Second story down this morning. I'm glad to see this stuff is getting the prominence it deserves. This is a huge change to how our society operates. It doesn't align with current law.

Powerful reporting, and part of a series of reports and columns in recent days and weeks. It is solidly building momentum that will make it harder for anyone or any organisation to a) deny what is happening and b) pretend it doesn't matter because it affects only a tiny minority.

The Legal Feminist submission on this is brilliant. They believe that if the FCA went ahead with this, it would breach their Public Sector Equality Duties.

In the Times article, the FCA is quoted as saying that it is following the example of Nasdaq, the American stock exchange. But they must be aware that Nasdaq is subject to American equalities legislation while the FCA has to comply with UK equality laws.

Why would they think that you can just import practices from other countries without considering the different laws which are in place in different countries?

The below is from the FCA's Diversity Annual Report 20/21

"Our gender pay gap reporting is based on legal sex because we don’t yet collect data about gender identity. We acknowledge that this does not reflect our commitment to inclusion of the trans and non-binary community and we are working with our LGBT+ Network (InsideOut) to ensure our reporting can be more inclusive going forward."

Sheldon Mills, a solicitor from Cardiff, acts as chairman of trustees at Stonewall and as an executive director at the FCA, the regulator for about 51,000 financial services firms and markets in the UK.

Mills helped to draft the diversity targets in the Listing Rules, which will require every listed company to declare the percentage of female board members and the number of women in senior board positions, according to self-declared gender identity, rather than legal sex. Firms will be asked to disclose the data on a “comply or explain” basis.

The comments under that Times ‘sex in boardrooms’ article are interesting. A lot of men are waking up to the issues.

Stonking article. The Legal Feminist submission on this is brilliant. They believe that if the FCA went ahead with this, it would breach their Public Sector Equality Duties. I would be very happy to contribute to - yet another - gardening fund on this. Court cases such as Maya’s, Keira’s and the ONS are the way to go.

I note that Ofcom - Stonewalled as it is - gets broadcasters to report on the basis of sex (they call it gender, but in their methodology it is legal sex). This is presumably for legal reasons.

It is very insidious of Stonewall to get its people into senior positions and then adopt a position - self-id - which the U.K. government has explicitly rejected. This is a total scandal.

But can we challenge this if it is against equality law?

@Blessex we don’t know, they just closed the consultation. Quite probably though, but it will be very interesting if they do listen to feedback (assuming it wasn’t mostly what an AMAZING idea) . Interestingly I mentioned the fca consultation in a comment on I think a Sarah forum times piece quite recently and it was quickly deleted. I hadn’t done anything silly like include a link.