To think that HR owes woman an apology

[Ddakji]

HR, trained by the CIPD and heavily influenced by Stonewall, have allowed a false interpretation of the Equality Act to permeate every institution in the land, from schools to hospital to government departments, to the detriment of women.

Growing numbers of organisations have been taken to employment tribunals by gender critical employees or staff, and have lost, costing those organisations thousands in pay outs. GC cases on the basis of belief tend to win (unlike most employment tribunals in the basis of belief).

The damage done by ideologically captured HR departments is colossal and will take years (and more court cases) to finally dismantle.

AIBU to think HR owes women an apology?

YABU to start the 97th trans thread of the day.

I started a thread about HR, and I don’t think I’ve seen one specifically discussing their role in this mess.

Feel free to scroll on by!

Seems like everyone else is!

Yes, that’s the way it goes sometimes. Still, thank you for bumping it!

If HR were one autonomous organisation, maybe. But it is not. However, I think a lot of individual HR departments will find they not only owe apologies but may also have to reverse decisions and make reparations for past actions. Or at least, I really, really hope so

You don't have to read it if you aren't interested.

"HR" isn't one giant homogeneous mass. If you want an apology from a specific HR department, then name them.

My employer's HR department has never been captured by trans ideology to the detriment of women and doesn't owe anyone an apology.

I’ve never worked anywhere that gave into this bullshit, so no, HR in general doesn’t owe apologies.

You may want to change your thread title. There's a typo. HR isn't one thing & I'm fed up of trans bashing this week.

I‘m happy with my grammar, thanks.

Interesting that you consider this trans bashing when it’s about restoring rights to women and girls. Trans haven’t lost anything legally.

I draw your attention again to the fact that the vast majority of GC employment tribunals win.

Do you think it's HR departments/professionals or the CIPD who guided/directed them?

Both. The CIPD must carry the can but the fact that so many HR professionals went along with their terrible guidance is on them. They allowed themselves to put aside all other considerations, all the usual checks and balances, due diligence etc, and of course the rights of women, and swallow their bunkum hook, line and sinker.

I think, as with publishing, it is no coincidence that the majority of those who work in HR are women. Unfortunately.

There's something funny here today..not you.
I think an invasion has happened.

They need to work their way through the five stages of grief.

Why are you happy with your grammar when it's wrong? You meant 'women', not 'woman'. Making a mistake is fine and understandable; doubling down on your mistake just makes you look silly.

Why HR? You do realise HR do not have decision making powers right? The government makes the law, HR advises companies how to apply it, if the law changes, HR will advise differently to follow the new law? Why on earth do you think HR owe anyone an apology? What a ridiculous thread to start!

Apologies, you are right about “woman” but the person critiquing my title seemed to be objecting to me referring to HR in the singular, which I still consider correct.

I’m a senior HR professional, including in the Civil Service and have never, ever promoted the TWAW line. I steered my organisation away from Stonewall and made it very clear what the law actually said. Including the rights that trans people do have, as well as those they don’t.

Don’t tar us all with the same brush.

The law hasn’t changed, though. The CIPD and HR, heavily influenced by Stonewall, went with an incorrect interpretation of the law, which changed the meaning of the word woman.

This resulted in organizations bringing in policies that, it transpires, were unlawful and have led to court cases that have been lost.

You’ll of course be aware that the first SEEN (sex, equality and equity network), to represent the rights of gender critical employees, was set up in the civil service. Which does suggest that the civil service has its problems.

Taking things personally won’t help get this situation resolved.

I work in an industry that is highly problematic. I’m not going to sit here and say that because I as an individual am gender critical that means my industry shouldn’t be heavily criticised.

That’s not going to get anything sorted.

I would imagine that many just went along with what their professional body was advising without giving it further thought. I think lots of other professionals with member bodies behave similarly in following guidance from their professional body without necessarily feeling they need to or are able to audit that guidance in the way you describe.

I don't know how closely individual HR professionals have been following this and whether they'll necessarily have picked up on the significance of the judgment (or even that it's been made), especially in smaller businesses where maybe they're not CIPD-qualified but they've just been given a HR hat.

What's your conclusion about the role in this of HR being female-dominated? Socialised to "be kind"?

I work in HR, and as I’m 1) a TERFy feminist and 2) an employment law geek I was never taken in by the Stonewall nonsense and wasn’t at all surprised by the Supreme Court ruling.

I am just wondering how long it will take for this judgment to filter down (correctly) to HR teams, especially in smaller organisations and among those HR professionals who are perhaps less engaged or conversant with legal matters.

And to what extent that will result in a change of direction (and humility where appropriate) or just a doubling down.

HR don’t make employment decisions managers do. As an HR professional one of the most frustrating things of the role is people not understanding what HR do.

Yes, female socialisation to be kind and put your own needs last. Publishing also has a huge dollop of privilege and a desire to be seen as progressive, not sure if that’s also the case in HR.