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?

That’s great, but do you agree that there’s a big problem with HR policies and the spread of this disinformation?

Oh piss off with this misogynistic bullshit. HR isn't one homogenous mass - the law wasn't clear and GRC's complicated matters. Organisations were told that unless there was a proportionate means to a legitimate aim that they should treat trans women as women and they would be protected as women, this has now been cleared up.

Lots of HR are gender critical and fought against TWAW so stop tarring every HR professional with the same brush. However, lots of people in HR still don't want to see trans people discriminated against so there is absolutely a need for policies surrounding trans issues - gender reassignment for example.

Some organisations were ridiculous with their policies I don't disagree but not every single HR department did this.

Also bad DEI. That’s been another big problem.

These are professional women, why are you infantilising them? They probably implemented them as that is what their professional body advised as well as legal advice as it wasn't clear, hence the need for the legal judgement.

Again - you are taking this personally when it isn't. Step back and look at the bigger picture.

I know plenty of terfy HR people who all agree that HR has been a big part of the problem. The CIPD have been appalling.

The law hasn’t changed. The misogyny was in any interpretation of the EA assuming that the words woman, man and sex had changed definition.

I'm not taking anything personally, you implicated every HR department in your OP and then said it was mainly women. The CIPD would have been legally advised.

No, I don’t agree.

Well my HR department never forced any of this nonsense on us, and I work for an international law firm. So to answer your post, no, I don’t think they owe me an apology.

Bad DEI! What does that even mean. In my organisation we follow the equality act 2010, it just is what it is? Am actually pretty shocked by your ignorance to be honest! No idea what HR do or how it works. Sweeping assumptions about all HR being the same?

Believe you me majority of HR professionals will be fully aware of the judgment whether they are CIPD members or not

I opened this thread thinking it was a thread about a specific woman who'd been unjustly treated at work. I didn't realise it was just another thread about the ruling which is part of the clutter on AIBU.

I was about to ask this exact question - organisations wanting to implement the law and make their practices inclusive and fair, how absolutely awful.

A lot of people forget that DEI practices do protect women as well so this Trumpian agenda to get rid of it will not bode well for us.

Believe you me majority of HR professionals will be fully aware of the judgment whether they are CIPD members or not

Isn't that a sweeping assumption too?

Well not personally but I have a good friend who would agree with you OP. Any concerns raised were taken under advisement from HR and it was stonewall law. But as others have said we cannot tar everyone with one brush. I don’t have an understanding of HR so feel I can’t engage in a debate regarding it but can see how a differently worded question could lead to good debate here not offence.

im self employed and don’t have HR etc but I do have to follow some laws relating specifically to my area of work. It’s not exactly a union but I’m a member of something like a union and I’ve relied heavily in the past on training and update emails I get access to through my membership regarding law changes and government guidance. I do generally read the law/guidance but often I don’t understand much of it so do need the layman explanations I get. I know many in my feild don’t even read the gov stuff just print it and file it. If it were not for the woman of Mumsnet I would never have thought to question some of what I’ve been told.

what I hope comes from this is people understand the requirements on us to do due diligence and don’t just assume what they are being advised is correct. If more of us questioned and sought the evidence for assumptions we were being told to take as fact it would no have got so bad.

it’s not just HR. Schools and educational settings outsourcing their PSHE is another example where there is the requirement on the school to do due diligence but they assumed because it was a proper company that they had met the requirements on them. To me the problem is not checking for ourselves and assuming those advising us are giving correct and fair advice

Again, you are trying to shut down the discussion. Trump wants to get rid of all DEI. That’s is not the same as critiquing DEI and acknowledging that some of it (for example, the kind of inclusion that seeks to include men in women’s spaces) isn’t well thought through.

There are DEI practitioners who have made points and I believe there’s been a recent report looking at the quality of DEI.

Considering I’m part of multiple HR networks spanning the uk and there’s huge amounts of discussion about it I would say I’m more qualified to know this than the OP who is basing it on a group of friends who by the nature of the relationship will be more likely to have similar interests/views than a bunch of strangers linked only by their profession

Well do share what DEI practices you feel all of HR departments implement that you disagree with (most follow the equality act)? Then we can have a discussion.

We have already established that not all HR departments implemented TWAW approach and that most that did go further were following guidance given at that time. Bare in mind that case law evolves all the time so whilst at one point organisations will do something that changes when challenged.

The CIPD may be the representative body for the HR profession but it doesn’t speak for or represent all HR professionals in the UK. You are tarring everyone with the same brush. Like many colleagues I left the CIPD a long time ago as I didn't agree with some of it's policies or what it's teaching through the accredited qualifications and didn't feel I was getting value for money.

Maybe it was pushing a particular interpretation of the Equality Act, but the reality is the law was unclear which is why it went all the way to the Supreme Court. In the meantime we had various Tribunal cases that forced the issue into the public eye, like Forstater and Kathleen Stock. It was a mess (and it won't suddenly be fixed because of this decision either).

In addition, if you think the CIPD needs to apologise so do a lot of other organisations including many of the trade unions who were pushing hard for policies that took the TWAW line. For example UCU and many of it's members were very fixed on this (looks at what happened to Kathleen Stock) and so were a lot of people in business roles. The belief was widespread, especially where it didn't affect the individuals directly other than to stroke their egos about being non discriminatory and 'kind'.

Yes some HR people, especially the younger age groups coming on to the profession, and those operating in the DEI space, got a bit captured by the group-think. But there were always individuals doing their best under difficult circumstances. We've had to try and write policies, advise on various matters and support grievances whilst treading a fine line to avoid being called a TERF, being ostracised or even losing our jobs. (Where does HR go for support and advice? Who looks after our mental health?)

So your question about who should apologise is misplaced. It's just another example of how unpleasant and polarising this how thing has been.

CIPD - absolutely yes. HR more generally - some but definitely not all.

Such a pity that a welcome clarification of the equality act (and a positive outcome) has spawned such a load of gloating prat behaviour. Don’t count me among them.