Where is the drive coming from?

Yes this. Also it’s what campaigning can look like.

ESG teams and HR teams are on the look out for new stuff to do. Things that don’t cost much like the pride flag and guidance on pronouns on emails are attractive vs making the financial case to close the male / female pay gap.

ans it was marketed to them glossing by Stonewall et al as ‘the next thing’ which as ‘just like gay rights’.

some in those teams will be on the TRA side and using their position to drive it forward. Others just don’t think about this (or anything) that hard and do what’s coming down the track. Or have doubts but set them aside for an easy life / because the risk of questioning it can be high.

Some see the push back as ‘just like racism’ or ‘just like Brexit’ so assume all push back is a sign they are ‘on the right side of history’.

a well organised campaign + proffering any easy life + fear of challenging ‘inclusivity’ can take an idea a very long way.

i think in the U.K. the high tide is about now. As labour are moving towards a compromise position, other centre left-ish people and orgs will dare to do so with that permission/ cover.

or will think again now a different power base is backing away from the TRA position.

the sexism / misogyny of a lot of centrist or leftish men has been revealed by these issues.

As @Toseland says it's all part of an ESG and diversity policies within companies.

So let's take Company A that knows it needs to meet ESG and diversity targets. So it employs an ESG officer to do this.

Now on the environmental targets yes the company can buy green energy, recycle more, put in energy efficient light bulbs etc but let's face it for the ESG officer that is alot of work and a bit dull.

So on the Governance part, the ESG officer can start getting involved in how the Directors run the company and whether their actions are appropriate/ legal. But you really need to know your stuff and corporate law her plus you run the very real risk of pissing off the Directors who employ you.

So on diversity, legally there cannot be any discrimination (racism, sexism etc). But what metric do you use to ensure diversity- female managers, BAME employees, gay managers disabled employees etc. It is impossible to have an employee at all levels of seniority from top to bottom that perfectly mirrors society.

Which leaves social and given that no one really cares about the race, religion or sexuality of employees or customers then what better way for the ESG officer and company to generate publicity and appear on trend than to promote trans issues. Plus they fear the backlash if they appear to be anything less than actively promoting trans issues.

Julia Hartley Brewer asked Helen Joyce this. Something along the lines of even when these companies know their virtue signals are unpopular, and even produce a negative financial impact, why do they keep doing it?

Helen's answer was, loosely, that their LGBT/EDI representative or department or marketing team, will suggest something and each layer or sign off is too shit scared to say no.

And we know that's true. And we know why. Women have been threatened, intimidated and persecuted relentlessly over this.

I think in corporates it is relatively easy to virtue signal. Adding she/her to an email sulignature is so much easier than fixing the gender pay gap or improving diversity at exec levels.

I proudly googled my way to that article a few months ago (not-so stealth boast!! 😄) and I felt like a crazy Qanon conspiracy loon.
But it does make sense, we’ve seen it before with tobacco, petrol/oil, sugar, processed food, and it sadly is much of the answer.

But why though?

I think it's part of corporate ESG policy.

Somehow all the outside training agencies on edi are paid loads to tell companies what to do and schools. For schools edi is high on ofsted so it's in development plans etc. The want to be progressive?

Obviously coming up with "no debate" and attempting to tie it in with lgb discrimination is genius

My first thought with companies/advertising is that they are constantly on the look out to appeal to young customers. But idk if this is enough to cover it.

I can’t answer your question.

You’re probably aware of some of the investigative journalism done by Jennifer Bilek on this topic:

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/#.WowaHsS0mwM.twitter

I think there’s a lot of investment behind this movement and there’s evidence suggesting that the secrecy with which it was introduced is not accidental either. The business tactics of hostile takeovers appear to have been used, which is why it’s now so embedded. Some of the tactics are outlined in the Denton’s document.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

There is something odd going on though, that’s not visible, or at least that’s how it feels. There is Helen Joyce’s sunk costs theory: people who have transed their children, or allowed them to be transed, cannot afford psychologically to backtrack. Where they are in positions of power, changing the direction of travel is going to be nearly impossible.

Every time I think the tide is turning, another mystery appears or so it seems. I don’t understand why companies are still falling over backwards to support this. The publishing industry is so captured that I can’t even begin to imagine how it will be turned around.

It’s very difficult psychologically, but then it’s meant to be. We are slowly making progress, but the waves do keep coming. It’s going to be a long way back.