Help translating EDI speak please!

@FortheloveofPetethePlumber

"..take the knee to men with gender identities" is such a brilliant way to put it.

The solemn declarations before any event that “women includes transwomen” etc.

I'd keep to the facts, not add anything extra around definitions etc.

How does your job benefit women? I'm sure the basis in grounded in reality not swirly skirts and head tilts. If it's flexible working type HR, you can talk about the caring responsibilities women face, if it's designing phone handsets that fit the female hand, you can mention women have smaller hands. Just use "woman" in a reality, common sense way when describing how your work helps them. Don't get drawn into anything more, nobody will benefit.

Thanks Cpt Nancy. It’s reassuring that the 95% are sane but the 5% are so vocal and so keen to penalise wrongthink.

They've made a statement about who they include when they talk about women, I would suggest (EDI professional) that you follow that very clear cue (you don’t need to refer to it explicitly) or opt out if it goes against your beliefs or values, they’ve shown you what they’re expecting of your behaviours and approach in their remit.

EDI professionals also have to adhere to the laws of the land. The Sandie Peggie case has really highlighted that taking duff advice from EDI professionals does not protect you at all when the shit hits the fan. If EDI and the Equality Act are not your area of expertise OP it's find to state that if any questions arise.

This.

When you require everyone doing anything about women to first take the knee to men with gender identities, you've just ended your core purpose and signalled to all that women should not be the primary focus and be bloody careful what you say/limit your involvement as much as possible in case some nutter doesn't like it and decides to wreck your career. Shot in the foot indeed.

Hopefully we're going to see actual women only groups set up using the law and the right to be women only, and be able to get back to actually doing things for women that don't have to be all about men and activists.

It depends on how the discussion was managed.

Robust exchanges only happen if the group is able to see multiple issues and list pros and cons. If it was seen as a good way to work out a fairly wide view of what is "black/white" and how to manage the "grey" the overall outcome will be better.

I am reminded of the NHS Brighton (?) position on women asking for same sex healthcare which was deemed as transphobic. Its management staff failed (refused) to recognise their legal obligations to obtain informed consent and prevent male staff engaging in criminal assault so they failed (refused) to write a policy on what a staff members obligation was. The robust discussions could not happen because it is very clear what the result would be.

Its the same with any political ideology if people have vested reasons to not get involved the outcome is skewed or less than it could have been.

So the "womens" group organisers has shot the event in its foot.

They invited you as you are a 'rare' example in your end of the industry and should be an example of a woman breaking through barriers etc. And have the ability to share valuable experiences of what it is like to work in your role.

Instead they allowed trans ideology and other political ideology to create a limiting factor on a free exchange of ideas. This cholce prevented you and possibly others from exploring various roles and share experiences.

You have assed that you gain limited / no value from the event and dont see a value in participating in the next event.

Thanks for reporting back, and glad it went reasonably well. Sad but not surprised to hear its aims - and your own participation - were arguably somewhat undermined by gender ideology. It suggests that your wariness in your original post was indeed justified.

You seem confused, @Pifflepafflewifflewaffle. The OP's speaking at a women's group in relation to women's issues which are relevant (if not central) to her work. She says, she's been invited to speak about "an area of expertise that has a peripheral impact on women which is why they've invited me".

To do this in a meaningful way, she needs to understand what the audience, and she, mean by "woman". Perhaps their meanings will intersect or overlap - "how women are judged in professional contexts according to whether their clothing is traditionally gendered or not" would be applicable to women and transwomen. Or perhaps their meanings will be distinct - "how women manage period poverty in deprived urban centres" would be applicable only to women.

There wouldn't have been this necessity 10 years ago, but now there's a volatility surrounding these issues that you posts help to demonstrate. Eg. your reference to pants (I'm not even going to quote it - ugh) - what on earth makes you write that? It's weird enough that I don't plan to engage with you again on this.

I also don't want to disrupt the OP's thread further. I honestly think I've made my point, and that your interventions have in fact demonstrated its validity, in real time, it for me and other readers.

If possible, keep it vague?

Obviously some men who claim they are women will have it worse than other men, others don’t (Pips Bunce appears to be lauded, for example).

Guess it depends what your area is, but if other marginalized groups than women might also be positively impacted, you can just say that you haven’t looked at other groups specifically, but that you think it’s likely any marginalized group might see the same effect. You don’t have to comment on whether you think that particular group of men is marginalized or not.

interesting that the EHRC have just backpedaled on their hasty recommendations, incidentally.

No they haven't. They've simply clarified a small point about workplaces providing non-sex differentiated toilets.

You TRAs really are grasping at straws now.

backpedalled 😂

Ahh you mean this bit from their website referencing Monday's update:

“This change has been made to ensure everyone has access to the most accurate information. It should not be interpreted as a change in our fundamental position on the implications of the judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that sex in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex.

Not seeing much backpedalling there!

OP - pifflepafflewifflewaffle is clearing saying that they believe that a man can be a woman - obviously that is not true, so despite any EDI professional experience, be cautious about being taken down a path of their choosing...

back to your original point...
you need to consider why your topic having a marginal impact on women is relevant - presumably you mention this because there is a significance for women in that impact. If so, then that significance will not apply to transwomen who are not women, but who are men.

So it is relevant to present it but I don't think that I would overly worry - I would simply present your talk and refer to women - there may be those there who wrongly believe that might include some men - but their misbelief is not going to impact your talk. If you are directly challenged I would simply say that you comply with the recent Supreme Court Judgement in defining women as biological women / defined by birth sex.

Hopefully they will be too polite to go off at a tangent, I think the key in today's world though is to just play it straight as always happened, with no expectation that anyone might think otherwise, and with an assumption that everyone is with you - it makes it much harder for trouble makers to cause issues... and if they do you can speak confidently in the knowledge that you are backed up by biology / reality / law / etc.

They haven't back pedaled at all.

No, that’s not what I’m saying.

the OP explicitly said: ‘ Luckily the focus of my work isn't women which makes it easier to deflect - some women happen to benefit from what I'm talking about but its not the main purpose for doing it.’, which means that your suggestions are irrelevant, because believe it or not, not everything is about what’s in someone’s pants.

im saying that given the OP’s subject doesn’t touch on the matter, unless she goes out of her way to reference a perspective that goes outside of the one made clear by the organisers, there’s no reason she’d have to delve into the semantics of the Supreme Court ruling and make herself uncomfortable.

interesting that the EHRC have just backpedaled on their hasty recommendations, incidentally.

Apologies, OP, as I know your thread is seeking practical advice, and a challenge to Piffle of this kind is perhaps not the most helpful. It's just that the absurdity of their approach (or not, if Piffle does reply to clarify that I've misunderstood), and its impact on speakers such as yourself (already, I think, proven by the existence of the thread itself) really concerns me.

What Piffle seems to be saying is that, regardless of the content of your talk and nature of its relevance to women, you include transwomen (males) in what you say.

So Piffle is saying, apparently, that if you're discussing pregnancy, or periods, or FGM etc., you should also present this as applicable to males, as this is the ethical thing to do.

The only alternative I can see is that Piffle is suggesting that, if your talk is about any of the above - even if it may be of benefit to trans men (females) - you perhaps don't give the talk at all.

Am I right, @Pifflepafflewifflewaffle? I find it hard to understand the below in any other way:

theyve made a statement about who they include when they talk about women, I would suggest (EDI professional) that you follow that very clear cue (you don’t need to refer to it explicitly) or opt out if it goes against your beliefs or values

if you, as previous posters have suggested, use your platform to share your views on whether trans women are women, for example, the organisers are likely to have an issue with it, because they’ve made their position clear

No, I think this is my point, I don’t think you do need to do or say anything, just if you, as previous posters have suggested, use your platform to share your views on whether trans women are women, for example, the organisers are likely to have an issue with it, because they’ve made their position clear.

for all you need to know, their statement could just refer to bathroom facilities, so you can work on that basis and just get your presentation done without worrying about any of it, I would think?

red flag at beckfoot = escape the lecture theatre, run for the exits, hoist the mainsail!

Or recite the first two lines of Casabianca, while mowing the lawn in a pattern to say "Not today" !

It means some of your fellow speakers might be talking about trans women and their experiences, and that would be welcomed by the organisers. But I don't see there's anything in what they've said to stop you just talking about women in the traditional sense of the word and how what you're doing impacts them. If someone asks a question about trans women just answer it honestly (eg, "that hasn't really come up" or "I'm sure they'd also benefit from Xxxx").

Or maybe they don’t, and they support marginalised communities.

do you really think that a trans woman in your audience is going to have someone had a better time of it in the workplace? Literally look at this forum for what they know every day some people in work are thinking.

theyve made a statement about who they include when they talk about women, I would suggest (EDI professional) that you follow that very clear cue (you don’t need to refer to it explicitly) or opt out if it goes against your beliefs or values, they’ve shown you what they’re expecting of your behaviours and approach in their remit.