Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Need some help being a judge

35 replies

Athenajm80 · 12/07/2022 22:26

I volunteered to judge nominations for an award at work (Civil Service department, we have been Stonewalled but it's not really obvious thankfully)

We have to write our thoughts on each nomination but then will meet and discuss them to decide who wins.

One nomination is for a non binary person, lots of use of "they". The work side of the nomination is ok, but then a good section of the form goes on about how x has done their normal job whilst still representing and standing for LGBT++ colleagues, including getting the entire department to now state their pronouns on their emails.

I COULD just focus on the work part and base my opinion on that, but I want to be prepared for the pronoun part to come up in the discussion and to be able to explain coherently why that has caused me to mark the person lower.

I was thinking of putting something about this putting pressure on GC colleagues, trans/non binary people who aren't "out" yet, but didn't know what else I could say that makes it sound like a well thought out point, rather than an attack (literal violence!) on the candidate. I'm not too bothered if they disagree or if it counts against me at work, partly cause I'm only on a secondment, but I want to make people think.

Do you think I could say something about it being discriminatory against those with gender critical beliefs which are protected in law and refer to the Forstater case? It may be unreasonable of me, but I don't want this person to win based on "how brave and strong" they are, when actually it's not IMO brave and strong to follow the Stonewall yoonique shit.

Sorry for the long post!

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Original poster
Athenajm80 · 13/07/2022 23:52

To clarify, I wouldn't mark them down for being non-binary. I'm not a complete asshole. I might not agree with their gender beliefs, but that's not what I was thinking about. I put the last but about thinking they look like a TRA just as a personal opinion but I wouldn't judge them workwise for that.

It was the insertion of all the "stunning and brave" "they made everyone do the pronoun thing" that I was wondering about. It's got nothing to do with the nomination or category, and I was trying to work out whether, by nature of the fact it had been included, I would count it as part of the nomination and therefore could see it as a negative for all the great reasons @CharlotteOH has put. Also, I wanted to be prepared for the discussion meeting in case someone else mentioned it and how would I then be able to phrase my objections to this being considered a positive.

I hope that makes more sense. I honestly dgaf how someone wants to identify, just don't force it on others in your workplace by insisting we all do the pronouns on email shit.

Also, thank you to a pp who thought this post may be outing. I don't particularly care if someone tries to work out who I am from the 435,000 civil servants in the UK. All departments I have worked in have awards around this time of year anyway, so I'm sure there are a few other people in this position (not least the other judges in my award category)

Once again, thank you all for your posts. I think I know now how I will deal with this (and no, it won't be to mark them down for looking like they'd irritate me 😁)

OP posts:
JacquelinePot · 13/07/2022 22:11

Why is everyone saying not to mention the pronouns "activism"? If it's not appropriate to be part of the judgement it shouldn't be part of the nomination.

Op will of course need to broach it carefully because people who believe in gender identity will find any challenge offensive/harmful/dangerous/beyond the pale but that doesn't make it unsayable.

viques · 13/07/2022 21:20

titchy · 13/07/2022 09:20

If the award is for their work and not for activities on diversity, then judge them on their work. Sorry I assumed it was a diversity award because of how much time you took to describe this areaConfused

So stick to work fgs. Have any of them implemented a new process that has streamlined your area or created a dashboard to inform your wider community? Done a newsletter to raise the dept profile? Acted up for an absent colleague? Represented your group at external events?

I agree, concentrate on the work if it is an award for work. That is the only fair and reasonable way to judge unless in the rubric around the award other areas such as mentoring, supporting diversity , offering CPD are specifically mentioned. In the case of diversity then all areas of diversity should be considered as a pp mentions upthread, it is not an opportunity for a soapbox.

Baaaaaa · 13/07/2022 21:12

Oh no. Have this weird thing going on where the titles don't match the threads. Sorry, I'll try and get my post deleted and put it on the Penny Maudant thread

Baaaaaa · 13/07/2022 21:11

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

LaughingPriest · 13/07/2022 15:45

OP should not even be considering the pronoun thing - it's irrelevant

Agreed. But that's not being affected by the person being non-binary. Janet specifically stated that the OP wanted to mark them down for that.

LaughingPriest · 13/07/2022 15:43

GoodJanetBadJanet · 13/07/2022 13:32

Exactly, thanks, that's what I was referring to.
It's not me who isn't understanding, I mean it's right there in the post!
I haven't made anything up.
I'm assuming you missed that bit, laughingpriest?

I thought "the pronoun part" referred to the work they had done in requiring pronouns in emails, rather than it meaning "the person is NB". I'm sure the OP can clarify, but that would be in line with the opening post, where they spell out that it's the work requiring pronouns that is giving them pause for thought, and not that the person is trans.

Motorina · 13/07/2022 15:37

I've been mulling this over during the day and I think, OP, you need to work out what the issue is for you.

Is it that you find the non-binary purple pronoun person inherently irritating? In which case I sympathise, but it would be quite wrong - and frank discrimination - to let that factor in. To the extent that, if you can't set it aside, you should recuse yourself from the panel.

Is it that the pronoun advocacy is irrelevant? If so, set that material aside and focus on the relevant information. You might want to ask fellow panellists, "Perhaps you could help me see how this is relevant to this award?" or something.

Is it that it's created problems? If so, focus on that. "My concern is that this has diverted this individual's focus from their core role... had this impact on their team..." Whatever.

But identify the concerns you have, and then you'll know what to say. "I don't like pronoun stuff for these reasons" isn't enough. I agree with you! But equally I recognise others are entitled to find pronouns important, and shouldn't be disadvantaged because of it.

titchy · 13/07/2022 15:08

Someone shouldn't be marked down for their work on pronouns though, UNLESS it had directly had a negative impact on their actual paid work. Which OP doesn't suggest it has.

I'm as GC as they come - but people can't be discriminated against because of their legally held beliefs.

Zita60 · 13/07/2022 14:03

titchy · 13/07/2022 13:27

Janet has a point:

I COULD just focus on the work part and base my opinion on that, but I want to be prepared for the pronoun part to come up in the discussion and to be able to explain coherently why that has caused me to mark the person lower.

Given the award is for WORK not contribution to diversity, OP should not even be considering the pronoun thing - it's irrelevant.

Show quote history

The OP isn't marking the person down for being non-binary, but because of their work on pronouns.

GoodJanetBadJanet · 13/07/2022 13:32

Exactly, thanks, that's what I was referring to.
It's not me who isn't understanding, I mean it's right there in the post!
I haven't made anything up.
I'm assuming you missed that bit, laughingpriest?

titchy · 13/07/2022 13:27

LaughingPriest · 13/07/2022 13:15

You can't dismiss them or mark them lower than everyone else just because they're non binary for goodness sake!

Janet, again, you have made this up. Read the OP. Did you really not understand?

Janet has a point:

I COULD just focus on the work part and base my opinion on that, but I want to be prepared for the pronoun part to come up in the discussion and to be able to explain coherently why that has caused me to mark the person lower.

Given the award is for WORK not contribution to diversity, OP should not even be considering the pronoun thing - it's irrelevant.

LaughingPriest · 13/07/2022 13:15

You can't dismiss them or mark them lower than everyone else just because they're non binary for goodness sake!

Janet, again, you have made this up. Read the OP. Did you really not understand?

PaterPower · 13/07/2022 09:41

If the awards are for their actual work product, but someone’s seen fit to shoehorn in a load of non-pertinent (to the award criteria) information, then I think you’re safe to ignore the extraneous stuff, in the same way you’d ignore a nominee’s work on promoting disability access, or hiring diversity if THAT wasn’t relevant to this either.

Just don’t mention it at all. Stick to judging the evidence that IS pertinent to the award. If they get your vote purely on that basis, great. Just be consistent and fair with your marking - nobody can have any objections if you do that.

titchy · 13/07/2022 09:20

If the award is for their work and not for activities on diversity, then judge them on their work. Sorry I assumed it was a diversity award because of how much time you took to describe this areaConfused

So stick to work fgs. Have any of them implemented a new process that has streamlined your area or created a dashboard to inform your wider community? Done a newsletter to raise the dept profile? Acted up for an absent colleague? Represented your group at external events?

DelurkingLawyer · 13/07/2022 09:13

I see this frequently in awards for my line of work. Some people have done a lot to further equality, but others think that “being” a member of a protected category is enough. On analysis there is precious little done to help others in the same or other protected groups, and a lot of promotion of themselves.

Insofar as activism is in any way relevant to what you are judging I think you need to focus on what they have done rather than what they are.

Bonheurdupasse · 13/07/2022 08:40

LordLoveADuck · 13/07/2022 03:03

That is absolutely brilliant. I'm going to keep a copy of it to have as a template and suggest others who like me can be at a loss for words when furious. I really am in awe!

Show quote history

Agree with this!

picklemewalnuts · 13/07/2022 08:32

Don't mention it unless it's raised as a positive.

So all your comments are about the work. When someone else says 'and we should applaud them for being stunning and brave', that's the time to channel Charlotte's advice.

Is it appropriate to the work place, or is it a personal political belief?
Are we equally recognising inclusion of all the protected characteristics?
Do we want to pressure people to out themselves or indeed should we be encouraging people to feel obliged to state their sexuality/gender?

teawamutu · 13/07/2022 08:15

Charlotte nails it. But only if you aren't going to create problems for yourself by mentioning it.

achillestoes · 13/07/2022 06:30

Ignore it. If anyone challenges you, explain that it was irrelevant to the award.

Gingerkittykat · 13/07/2022 05:46

I would say you have made yourself potentially identifiable in this post. How many people in the civil service are going to be judging employees with one NB person on the list.

FiddlefigOnTheRoof · 13/07/2022 05:24

i’m GC and civil service. Do not under any circumstances mention the non-binary/pronouns issue in your judging rationale!

LordLoveADuck · 13/07/2022 03:03

CharlotteOH · 12/07/2022 23:40

Depends on if the award is for a specific piece of work or more generally on behaviour in the workplace.

I’d critique their work, then say something like… “I’m also mindful of what could be termed their political activity in the workplace. The civil service is of course required to be politically neutral. It is no secret that there is a highly emotional political debate currently raging between trans activists on the one hand, and those with more gender critical beliefs on the other. Both groups have their beliefs protected as a matter of equality law, particularly in the workplace. It’s my understanding that Candidate X has lobbied colleagues in the workplace to support their political position and that creates an inhospitable environment for employees with gender critical beliefs, which has legal implications. For example, pressuring colleagues to state pronouns in email signatures is a well known way of stating support for a certain political ideology. I question whether this is anymore appropriate than asking colleagues to add “vote Brexit” would have been a few years ago. There is a tension with our obligations of political neutrality. I’m cautious about this. I think that in the workplace Candidate X could benefit from reflecting on the extent to which their activities at work could be perceived as failing to be politically neutral. Some might even be said to cause concern regarding the civil service’s legal obligation not to discriminate against employees with gender critical beliefs. And, as I said, there are the issues with X’s work. I prefer Candidate Y because…”

That is absolutely brilliant. I'm going to keep a copy of it to have as a template and suggest others who like me can be at a loss for words when furious. I really am in awe!

GoodJanetBadJanet · 13/07/2022 01:10

You can't dismiss them or mark them lower than everyone else just because they're non binary for goodness sake!.
That's the definition of discriminatory.
Yes, the law says you're entitled to your beliefs. It doesn't say you are entitled to treat anyone else differently due to them though.
Which you would be doing if you're doing it because they're "irritatingly smug" and "TRA like just without blue hair" 😕 and because you don't agree or whatever about being non binary.

Please ensure you are fair and treat every entry on its merits.
This

Tallisker · 12/07/2022 23:42

Or alternatively, what Charlotte says Grin