BBC wants 50% of LGBT staff to be “out”

[PPNC]

The new BBC diversity plan wants at least 50% of LGBT staff to be “out” to their boss. AIBU to think this is regressive and insane?

Why should I (if I were both gay and worked at the BBC), say “hey boss person, I like shagging other women!”. Why are they asking instead of aiming for it not mattering who I choose to bump uglies with,
as it doesn’t affect my ability to do my job and is not really anybody else’s business?

Fully happy to be re-educated and told that A - the DM have read it wrong (as they are an agitator totally possible), or B - it’s essential for equality.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9295787/amp/BBCs-diversity-directive-Director-Tim-Davie-launches-bottom-shake-up.html

Weird thread. I wouldn't take the Daily mail's take on anything that combines the BBC with gay people. Like waving two red flags at two bulls...

I think that if someone asks you on a Monday morning if you had a nice weekend, you should be able to say that you and your partner tried out the new Italian on the high street, or went to see the latest James Bond film, without having to avoid mentioning their name or having to avoid giving away they are the same sex as you. Just the same as a straight person would not have to. I'm proud of the fact that the place I used to work in always came near the top of LGBT friendly places to work.

I’m really surprised that so many people aren’t out at somewhere like the BBC.

I agree 50% seems low!

I agree with some of the more negative comments about this so wouldn't want the target to sit at 100% or even 90% of people as out

Of course there will be people who don't want to discuss their private life at work, or who it totally makes sense don't want/feel the need to be out at work.

But to suggest that currently that more than half of people feel like that, and that the goal is only that only half of your gay members of staff would be able to discuss who they live with, families or even what they did at the weekend seems pretty low

@PPNC

Already explained that one as explanatory.

But to be honest, what more is there to being gay than same sex attraction? What should we see being “gay/bi/lesbian” as other than preferred sexual attraction. That’s not reductive it’s fact.

Same as hetero can be reduced to opposite sex attraction.

It is being reductive.

Being in a same-sex relationship shapes my life in ways that have nothing to do with my sex life. It shapes the fact my daughter has two mummies. Even if I split with my DP and never had a relationship again, I would still live in a house with a little girl who grows up understanding she has two mums.

At work I talk very little about my sex life; I imagine that's true of most of us. But I certainly talk about my DD, because parents often do talk about their kids.

I don't personally like the sound of what the BBC is doing (even when not filtered through the Mail). But it's homophobic nonsense to think that homosexuality is basically just about sex.

I was upset 6 years ago to find out that a mum who was 'out' at the school gate was not out at work. I was really sad that she and her wife had reason to believe their jobs would be harder if colleagues and bosses knew.

No one on this thread, from what I can tell, is advocating different standards for gay and straight people. No one is oblivious to prejudice. What is being discussed is whether a target culture for being out at work is the most sensitive way to address it. And homosexual people on this thread have argued both for and against the suggestion.

Enough with the 'gotcha' moments and accusations of bigotry. It doesn't further the conversation.

It's totally different to say - we want to be a place where people feel they can be open in a normal way about their family life, if they want to,

and.

We want 50% of our lgtbq+ people to be "out". Especially when that includes the "q" which seems to include things like kink etc which have no place in a workplace.

Especially when that includes the "q" which seems to include things like kink etc which have no place in a workplace.

Well yes. I’m very lucky, by the sound of it, to have been able to be casually out as a lesbian in my workplace since I started, with nobody being particularly bothered. My head of department is an out gay man.

But references to LGBTQ & queerphobia & pronouns & rainbow lanyards & so on make me want to back away fast. I used to have rainbow stuff everywhere but now it’s all associated with misogyny for me.

I'd also point out that the type of diversity they are looking for here is quite narrow.

What about a religious Muslim lady who feels that gays should remain single? Is she allowed to be open about her religious observances? Can she bring her "whole self" to work? What about people that have very strong differences in opinion about how to manage gender issues in the workplace, from a practical standpoint? What about people who are polygamous relationships?

The fact of that matter is that if anyone wants real, substantial diversity in the workplace, it means that we all have to be bother tolerant and kind of people who live differently and think differently than we do; we need to be mature enough to be beyond demanding that others we work with must approve of all the things we do or believe or validate us and make us feel authentic; and also we may have to make judgements at times about what personal things we bring into the workplace.

There is not going to be a single rule that will tell us where to draw the line around sharing our opinions, membership in a religious group, family or sexual arrangements, political affiliation, or anything else.

Yawn. I worked for the BBC in the early 80s in London where about 50% of the men were openly gay - it was positively fashionable before AIDS and some of them have since married women.
There were a fair few lesbians around too and several sex pests who pursued men and women (or sometimes both).

Everybody knew and nobody cared.

With the exception of sport, I really don't believe it's a big deal in many industries these days, least of all the media but trust the BBC to make it one.

So the BBC target is to have 50% male, 50% female and also some who are non-binary/non-conforming. Is that a total of 102% ?

I think the whole reason for this policy is revealed in the last bullet point - 100 'diverse role models' will be identified for a publicity campaign.

Surely what they need to know is things like:
"Do you feel that the working environment is tolerant and supportive of all sexualities"
"If you ask for time off for any family or compassionate leave, for example, would you feel that you could openly refer to a same sex partner"

And measure the responses anonymously against the number of staff who have anonymously ticked the LBG box.

They need to measure their behaviour in creating an inclusive environment, not make demands on the behaviour of LBGT staff.