Helen Joyce asks very pertinent questions about SEEN.

Maybe now realisation won't dawn if we aren't to be allowed to say what's real. Ironically, this is the basis on which SEENs were founded? Being able to say things as a GC person.

Hate crime measures back on agenda despite fears for free speech.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/c21cdd8f-beac-4850-9628-bb48e9648339?shareToken=3ec267766031e6dcc947ae75989a814ff_

I always think - surely when people see the results of genderism - Isla Bryson, Mridul Wadhwa, Lauren Hubbard, all the detransitioners and medical complications - realisation will dawn.

But people are busy and forgetful and have lots of other things to worry about.

One effect I see it having is corrosion of public trust in government and institutions. So again quite subtle and hard to track. Part of a general undermining of order and trust.

Maybe political parties are starting to grasp that absurd pronouncements don't win votes.

Another question might be how international bodies would respond to changes to render things like a GRC meaningless. Many of them seem to be captured too and some have real pull.

Yes, it seems like the group a bit above teens that are the most ardent. Though, I find teens in general to be a bit two faced. On the one hand a privately cynical for sure, but also loathe to challenge or seem mean, and think they need to respect others requests for things like pronouns.

I agree there will always be flat earthers, and if the main laws are changed/repealed, that will be a significant step, it may just die a slow death then.

I guess though I don't really see GI as independent, so until the wider ideology is rooted out I think it will be a danger. And I don't think the trajectory is the same outside the UK, places like Australia or Canada have a much bigger issue where GI has been codified in the law in ways that are going to be hard to change. I do wonder if the UK can really top being worried if this thinking is flourishing in other English speaking places.

GRCs wouldn't be reversed, they'd just be rendered meaningless. The Act was all about "acquired gender". So alright then. You've got that. But you can't use it anywhere. It doesn't trump sex.

Even if those with GRCs somehow persisted with "legal sex" (a nonsense that SM and others have helped talk us into), it would be a small and finite group.

And then we work on all the other loopholes like DBS checks. And keep going until safeguarding is restored.

I would imagine that anyone who has a GRC which was then reversed would claim a breach of their human rights and I suspect that if they took legal action they would win.

This is a really interesting post.

"Those people may have to be treated as their acquired legal sex for quite some time"

May have to be. OK so why? And could that be stopped by, say, amending the EQA as per one of SM's campaigns? If so, then that gets us pretty close to where we want to be - if we lobby for Repeal (of the GRA) at the same time. (Doesn't it?)

This is the kind of thinking we need to do now. The SM/WRN lobby day is all well and good, but ultimately it's not going to move us on without these kinds of ideas.

Worth considering that HJ has said it will 'take thirty years' to fix genderism

To change the laws? Could be sooner. In the UK anyway

Let's say that the GRA was repealed and no one was allowed to change their legal sex from that date. You would still have a number of people who already have a GRC and have changed legal sex. Those people may have to be treated as their acquired legal sex for quite some time so the problems caused by the GRA could persist for quite some time

It may be filtering through. Jon Pike, professor of philosophy at the OU, has just agreed a Joint Settlement with his employers.

I also think it's very slowly getting through to HR depts that you can't discriminate against people just for saying they know what a woman is. We're seeing quite a few cases being settled at the last minute, which is stressful for the claimants, definitely, but it will mean the respondents will have incurred costs and lessons are being learned at a glacial pace

Hm. Among teenagers, I'm not seeing the majority buying it, though.

Niche beliefs and religions persist, of course. There will always be flat earthers. But I don't see it would be necessary to counter that, so long as nobody is impacted by it adversely any more, children are protected, etc.

It might depend by what you mean to reverse it, I suppose.

To change the laws? Could be sooner. In the UK anyway.

But people's ideas and attitudes. I don't really think gender ideology will go until identity thinking goes. There's a whole generation that has been brought up with that thinking.

And do you imagine that everyone in a workplace will have a natural affinity groups?

How many different groups could there potentially be in a workplace? Can you imagine in a huge place like the civil service? Or in a small one, would there be enough to have more unusual groups represented?

What about an employees right to privacy? If Jill, a devout Catholic, is uncomfortable with the workplace pressure to be involved in company Pride events, does she have to find other like-minded Catholics to form a group with and basically out their religion to all? What about John who is just an average white guy, what's his affinity groups? Will there be groups to represent all kinds of political and philosophical views? That seems likely to be a large number of disparate opinions and interests.

Lobby groups have a place though they also have real problems. Workplace affinity groups, however, seem to be a solution to problems that should really be handled by some sort of more universal processes.

Come on, you are on the thread.

Gender woo has been pushed in workplaces by certain networks, and employers seem to feel an obligation to be responsive or at least be seen to be supportive.

It's not just in workplaces that women's groups and LGB oriented groups have been the main ones to embrace gender ideology, we've seen that here for years, organization after organization has been captured, it's a bit rich to start questioning that now.

I imagine people will have different opinions about why those groups seem to be taken in, I think it's because many already had bought into identity politics and gender ideology is very much part of that framework.

But why workplace affinity groups can have a negative influence in setting the tone of a workplace when they are intended to improve it? That's part of the question that the article is asking to a large extent, and it's pointing to the form or model as being problematic in itself.

It may be filtering through. Jon Pike, professor of philosophy at the OU, has just agreed a Joint Settlement with his employers. He was preparing for an ET, from what I understand. The OU has apologised for events resulting from Pike's involvement/ support (not sure which) relating to the OU Gender Critical Research Network which is the same network that Jo Phoenix helped found. and reiterated that it has commissioned an independent review — I think that was the independent review where it turned out that the lawyer originally appointed to carry it out was an ardent trans ally, wasn't it?

https://x.com/runthinkwrite/status/1828193644832055744 for those on Twix.

So it looks as if slowly HR departments are beginning to catch on. I think it's been estimated that the Phoenix ET cost the OU upwards of £1million — and of course it sustained massive repetitional damage.

And if one of the gatekeeping organisations referred to was SM, they really should be dealing with the massive beam in their own eye before hunting for motes in SEENs'. If it wasn't, then perhaps SM could direct some scrutiny that way.

For those who don't TwiX, here's the unroll of the KPSS thread about their closure: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1806278966203793535.html

Thanks for cheering me up - a bit.

I suppose the biggest issue I see is that there are no consequences for those who've allowed or pushed harm even when - as in Jo P's case or Rachel Meade- the bullying was quite obvious, was condemned by a court of law as criminal and discriminatory and then... crickets, tumbleweed. A bit like the Post Office scandal.

Until there are consequences for people taking home a salary for pushing these harms, the same thing can happen over and over again.

It's awful that women (and men) have lost jobs for speaking up for safeguarding children yet there's no consequence for those who've harmed children - they get to keep their jobs, their pensions etc. It should be the other way around in a sane society.

And will it really filter through to HR when there are no consequences for employees found to be putting ideology above reality in a court of law? I doubt it.

Yes, it can be disheartening to see ET after ET result in confirmation that women are being discriminated against (and some men). I do think this will start to filter through - HR departments, for example, will be taking note.

Also worth considering that some of the effect will be hard to quantify because it includes what DOESNT happen. For example, Jo Cherry having an event cancelled and challenging that as discriminatory - her challenge was successful so the event went ahead - that is likely a direct result of previous ETs but 'a show not being cancelled' is kind of hard to chalk up as a win.

We also can't always see what's happening under the surface. A bit like swan's legs - conversations being had quietly, articles being read, lurkers reading along ... all of these things add up and do have an effect. Cumulatively I'm not sure if that isn't the bigger battle - the cultural change that can happen without overt signs.

Consider surveys about whether people are happy that males can access women's single sex spaces, how attitudes have changed over the years, and how those attitudes show up (or don't).

Good statement from SEEN in publishing, thanks Arabella

Having just typed out my mammoth post above I've been reflecting on the need for SEEN. There's no SEEN for my job. I would be reluctant to speak up because I know I'd be fired and I can't afford to go to ET. I have children to support.

I'm disappointed really at how very little change the ETs have affected. Lots of women have won but to what end? Social work still appears thoroughly captured - most public institutions are, no consequences for the bullying of Jo Phoenix at all. Hundreds of thousands of pounds and women are still scared of losing their job and won't get proper recompense if they go to ET. Maya got more I think because it went to a higher court. But what did Allison Bailey get - £20k? How much did her legal costs come to? How much income did she lose? Many tens of multiples of the award. It's a joke.

Reflecting that KPSS achieved a lot more with a lot less. Huge respect to Kate and all at KPSS.

'Important questions posed here http://thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-89/ SEEN in Publishing provides a network for those in the sector who face or fear discrimination based on gender sceptical views. We look forward to an end to such discrimination, when our network will no longer be required.'

'Our aims are: To provide a supportive network for publishing employees, authors and freelancers within the industry who hold gender sceptical views, i.e. those who believe that there are only two sexes and that nobody can change sex.'

'To work with executives and other professionals within and across the publishing sector to identify, address and prevent discrimination against our members and those who share our views.'

'To help create an industry that supports and encourages diversity of thought and freedom of expression.'

'Eg: we want to ensure that our members can champion books they believe in without facing harassment and express concerns about workplace policies or editorial decisions (where these relate to sex and gender) without negative repercussions for their careers.'

'We look forward to the day that SEEN organisations such as ours are not needed. /end

KPSS are sorely missed. They were hugely useful and it's a great loss to no longer have them.

SEEN in publishing have made a response to the points raised by Helen Joyce, here, which I think is succint and clear:

https://x.com/SEENPublishing/status/1828312133915791828

Thanks, @Dumbledoreslemonsherbets

Thanks for all you do @GustyFinknottle getting your MP to wake up and become GC, even if only quietly, is a fantastic win!

My interaction with my MP has made me give up (he just refused to respond to what I actually asked) but I've got a new one now so I should really try again (tired, so very very tired of it all).

Ironically KPSS achieved a hell of a lot, then shut up shop. Personally I think they are still needed, though of course respect their decision and why they closed, but in terms of HJ's article they are to be applauded for achieving something then stopping!

This thread contains a lot of background

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5091477-keep-prison-single-sex-closing

There were lots of issues, KPSS weren't invited to a meeting with Braverman IIRC (and other meetings with government, even on highly KPSS relevant issues) but other groups were, including SM, and didn't push for KPSS to be included, there was work that they did that was not acknowledged by other GC groups.

There were differences of opinion that were not handled well. KPSS in general were a lot more uncompromising - imo because having really spoken to and understood the harms to vulnerable women in prisons they saw that fancy policy wankery such as 'legal sex' and 'biological sex' or amendment of the GRA or even GC as a 'belief' wasn't going to actually protect women from real, actual harm and could be used - in some circumstances - to abuse them.

GC as a 'belief' that is protected doesn't really help if you're facing a man flashing your 10 year old daughter in the toilets, or indeed if you're facing with a rapist with an erection threatening you in a women's prison's showers.

It's great progress for some situations and some women, specifically not getting fired (or at least being able to go to ET for being fired) for sex realist beliefs but not all, and not for safeguarding. GC being a protected belief doesn't improve safeguarding - which needs to be based on sex and reality not inner feelings or 'rights' law. I suppose it allows women to speak up a little more about safeguarding failures without fearing being fired (though women still are, let's face it and the fear of a long drawn out, expensive ET battle whilst not being able to work is still a huge disincentive to speak up - hence the need for SEEN), but that's about it.

The SM statement when KPSS closed was worded a bit as if Kate was an employee IMO.

KPSS was coming from a safeguarding angle and SM are more human rights / EA2010 focused as typical of political lobby groups. For women and children at the pointy end, safeguarding is more important and SM just don't fully understand safeguarding (again IMO, but there's lots of evidence of them getting it wrong and I note they also didn't support Esses and SSA, who are also safeguarding focused, calling for an inquiry as noted upthread).

But I'd suggest you read what KPSS themselves wrote about why they closed, though I think they don't name names
https://x.com/noxyinxxprisons/status/1806278966203793535?s=46

Cheers. But everyone can do this. Not necessarily the lesbian groups, obvs, but certainly going to see your MP.