Need some help being a judge

I think it would be relevant to note their contribution to the LGBT community and use it as a bridge to ask about the other 7 protected characteristics and who is championing them. If activism is applauded, how are the other candidates standing up for the other characteristics? Be scrupulously fair.

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…”

They've maybe misunderstood the protected characteristics of the EA, or perhaps that's irrelevant. Something to explore?

If the award is to do with work, focus on their work - the activism is irrelevant. It sounds like their work might be a bit light because of all the time spent on activism anyway.

If the award is to do with inclusion in the workplace, then you can consider whether their activism in this area is better/more impactful than the other candidates.

I'm as GC as they come but I don't think this is a good venue to pipe up about your own beliefs, especially if this is about their work.

Getting colleagues to add their pronouns is hardly a significant contribution to diversity is it? Installing ramps, supporting someone ND, changing an adoption leave policy, representing someone being sacked because their manager wasn't comfortable with their sexuality - those have required real effort, have had tangible benefits and are worthy of praise.

Please ensure you are fair and treat every entry on its merits. Don't seek to make an example of this person or their actions.

If the main premise is that they've been brave, I think it's fair to say it's important to consider repercussions (intended or otherwise) and be sure you do this with all nominations.

Apply the same criteria to all and the outcome will be fair.

I think it depends a great deal on what the award is. Is the T+++ stuff relevant? If not, then I think it's legitimate to comment that the evidence they have submitted is outwith the relevant criteria, and that raised concerns about their focus, both on the award itself, but also that their activism is diverting attention from their core job role.

If it is relevant then I think you have to critique the execution rather than their beliefs. Yes, GC beliefs are protected but, equally, so are theirs. So you might want to look at, for example, if everyone having pronouns in signatures increased team cohesion or if some people felt isolated, and whether they were able to listen to and involve people with different views.

Of course, this only holds true if their LGBT++ activism has actually posed a problem in the workplace. If they've increased openess and inclusion, and supported people who needed it, it might actually be a positive even though you disagree with them. And, really, whether or not you agree with their beliefs should not be a factor in deciding on an award. What should matter is the impact of those beliefs in the work environment.

Do you know how this person "got" their department to state pronouns? I think that would be relevant.
How have they represented and stood for LGBT colleagues? Were they elected? Or did they just say what they want to happen, without having been asked to do so by colleagues?

Oh Christ, don't mark them lower because of that! There is no way anyone would come out of that well!?!?