'Do you currently live in the gender you were given at birth?'

Perhaps the staff in manufacturing and export industries are expected to get on with the work they’re paid to do rather than waste company time filling in nonsensical forms.

For some strange reason, it seems not to be quite so overhyped in manufacturing and exporting industries vs the public sector and 'service' industries.

I’m wondering how some companies ever get anything productive done, with all these questions about “identity”.

I sent a query to our HR department asking why our staff survey EDI section had a question on gender identity (in addition to one on trans identity) and not one on sex. I got a very quick reply saying they thought this was more inclusive, and the PRIDE network had approved it.

My follow up saying no that doesn't answer my questions, please explain properly why you've done it and how you actually plan to disaggregate the data by sex when you've not collected the necesary reference point has - so far - gone unanswered.

I outed myself as a t e r f today. We were asked to update our diversity information at work.

The question said "what is your gender identity", is this the same as the gender identity you were assigned at birth and then a free form space.

In the free form space I said "this isn't the right wording as sex is observed at birth and you develop a gender identity (if any) later". We'll see if anyone notices and comes back to me.

Why is a job application asking about sex at all? Are they not risking being discriminatory? Unless the position is exempt under the EA - it really shouldn't matter what sex someone is when applying for a job.

@BodgerLovesMashedPotato you have repeatedly said what 'feeling female' is not, but can you explain what it is? (Or at least give 1 example, to start us off.)

Have you checked the list here to see if SexNotGender has already written them a blistering twitter thread?

https://www.sexnotgender.info/equality-monitoring/the-list/

Absolutely ridiculous.
Why do we put up with all this crap.

Agree. I can’t make head nor tail of what Bodger is saying here.

I find it extremely harmful to say thatvl there is some womanly essence and that you can therefore be a woman without having a female body. That thinking as been used to just women's oppression for hundreds of years. I think that view has no place in a civilised society and I'd nor want the younger generation to hear such anti women claptrap.

Bodger, do you mean you feel feminine? Not correcting you, just trying to understand what you’re saying.

Menstruation, pregnancy, etc, don’t reduce us to our body parts. They are just thing connected to being female. We have a lot more on top of that. If someone said humans were a bipedal species, would you tell them they were reducing us to our legs? Would you go on about the Renaissance, Mozart, the Apollo moon landings, etc, etc, and accuse them of ignoring all those things and focussing on legs? I hope not because it would be daft.

Women are female human beings and have certain biological attributes. Saying that is a simple factual statement and it most definitely doesn’t mean people think women are only that. Of course not. Women have a myriad of personalities, skills, ideas, emotions, hopes and dreams. Nobody who mentions female biology thinks that’s all there is about us.

Exclusionary, dash it!

Alifelessweird · Yesterday 20:24

But that’s what EDI seems to be nowadays.

I think it stands for Exclusive Divisive Indoctrination, myself.

Even if institutions were still captured (many are) and corporations were still pandering (hello bud and nike) and the internet still largely operated as a censor the real world with real people not trying to win points with stonewall or whatever other social credit system is at play in the country of operations do exist and are clearly saying no. People have been brave enough to stand out and be individuals saying, no and have been backed up by legal judgements. Lesbians, gays and bisexuals in increasing numbers are saying no.

No one buys this shit - it doesn't mean they want to exterminate you or deprive you of basic human rights they're just saying no to your agenda being placed above women's rights, children's rights, freedom of speech and religion, the neutrality of public services and accepting violent threats and actions and intimidation as legitimate in a democratic society.

The fact of continued tantrums and threats and gaslighting and hyperbole in the face of that mass, polite but clear, 'no' just emphasises what we are saying no to and why.

Absolutely. And again surely this must be DELIBERATE false representation and do they not see that the whole world is seeing through it now?

Saying - I don't agree with your religion/ideology/pseudo scientific view of reality clearly does not mean I don't think you exist or I'm trying to 'genocide' you. Nor are words literal violence.

No one including, thank god, the courts are buying this shit anymore. Give it up.

So you have a personality then. Good oh.

I have excellent literacy skills and, even if I bought in to the gender woo, do not know how a trans person should answer.

The options "No - male" and "No - female" are not at all clear. Does the male/female refer to your sex (or the gender you were given at birth 🙄) or the "gender" you are "living in"?

Obviously it should be referring to your sex as male/female are sex, rather than gender , descriptors but the terms are frequently misused to refer to gender so impossible to know

I think we'd all like a tenner for every time some bloke in a skirt has screamed that we were denying his existence.

Quite.

No one is saying that individuals who self-describe as a member of the opposite sex don’t exist. What people who don’t tell lies about biology are saying is that: self-describing as a member of the opposite sex doesn’t make a person an actual member of the opposite sex.

Repeatedly misrepresenting what people who don’t tell lies about biology think and say is part of the campaign strategy.

so I don't think woman essence is actually a thing

This woman essence - is it something we ooze to show we're women or is it like the four humours and resides within our bodies?

This sort of language is really unhelpful. Of course they exist. But they're not men. Saying someone is not a man is not saying they don't exist. Saying a donkey is not a zebra does not mean you're saying the donkey does not exist. What do you even mean by 'exist' in this statement?

It's actually important to do just that. 'Woman' is just biology. Once we accept that, we can start to accept that women can actually be who they want and do not have to conform to stereotypes. If it's not just biology then what on earth is it which is not highly restrictive? It makes as much sense to reduce 'woman' to biology as it does to reduce 'human' to biology.