Rainbow badges at work - upset

[whatishappening123]

I work in a sector with vulnerable young people. A few years ago, we made the decision as a company to wear as part of our uniform, a name tag with the rainbow on as part of pledging our support to LGBT+
We have all received new name badges and for the first time ever- an option has been provided to have a red coloured one instead of the rainbow if staff 'do not agree with LGBT+'
I have raised this with HR and union and been told that staff are now allowed to choose and that is their right.
I feel really upset by this - colleagues I have known for years are now deciding against the rainbow badge.
We work with the most vulnerable- who are often LGBT. Some of our service users have asked staff directly why they are not using them- and they have lied saying " They'd run out , or the pin on the rainbow ones are crap, some staff are hiding the red ones.
It's not a majority by any means - it's probably about 11 staff in a staff of 60.
I just feel really really upset by it, but I can't quite put my finger on why.
I also don't understand how people can be 'against' LGBT
It's a protected characteristic.

Leaving aside for now the question of which 'side' are the bigots for the sake of avoiding a derail, it may seem easy to spot 'who the bigots are' when you are the one trumpeting a fashionable cause because, for now at least, it's expedient.

What about when the cause isn't so fashionable anymore? When it's not only no longer cool, but has been actively proven to cause measurable harm to vulnerable young people, the charities peddling unscientific and dangerous medical advice are sued (and some of their executives chucked out on their ear for child-related offences), and the cases tested in court come out overwhelmingly in favour of those harmed by the ideology. What gives when pronouns are quietly being dropped from badges and LGB people are stepping back from the somewhat coerced association with an additional cause which has parachuted itself in and eaten its host from the inside out?

What about when people begin to question the coercive power of an unusually aggressive movement, start analysing the damage its caused, and a mass court action is taken about medical intervention with irreversible effects which should have been better regulated rather than handed out to vulnerable young people lacking Gillick competence? What happens when the ethics committees get going on those who have brought this about?

When the day's cause celebre becomes a generation of personae non-grata, will those people who today decry the 'bigots' who questioned all this still have the courage of their convictions? Will they still be prepared to display them on badges once the tide has turned, their views have become 'uncool' and ultra-conservative, not least medically and socially dangerous, and suddenly, doubtless to their shock and surprise, they find themselves on 'the wrong side of history?'

My private estimation is: will they fuck.

Don’t wear either? My point is that it should be the choice of the rainbow lanyard or nothing.

wearing something designed to show kids they are in a safe space

This is itself a huge safeguarding fail - telling children that someone wearing an easily available symbol is ‘safe’. In what world do you think that such a message is not being exploited? Just look at the Stephen Ireland case.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2kkrxdpndo

1. You realise that lanyards have a functional purpose right? If you "choose nothing" because you don't want a rainbow lanyard, what do you attach your ID to?
2. Even if it could be argued that "rainbow or nothing" is a genuine choice, why do you think the options should be rainbow or nothing? Why not Free Palestine or nothing? Why not rainbow or Free Palestine? Why not "cats are better than dogs" or nothing? Genuinely interested in your thought process here.

Ok so gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. This includes people who have not yet transitioned. This is in the Equality Act 2010. I have made no mention of bathrooms or shared spaces as it is not relevant either to the OP which is about lanyards or the post I was replying to which was a claim that being transgender is not a protected characteristic. It is.

OK but how is whether it is a protected characteristic or not relevant to lanyards?

Did you say this at work or comply?

Gender reassignment protection does apply to transgender people as it applies to people who have not yet transitioned as well as those who have. This is literally written in the law

Utter tripe!

Nope. Incorrect.

The Equality Act does not say that protection is limited to only being treated like other men. Tribunals have confirmed that trans people must not be treated less favourably in contexts such as accessing services, employment, or education, including in their affirmed gender. There are limited exceptions (e.g., certain single-sex services under Schedule 3 of the Act) where service providers can lawfully exclude or treat trans people differently if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

So: trans women do have rights to be treated as women in many contexts, though there are some narrow exceptions where providers can justify different treatment.

It is disingenuous to say men destroying women’s spaces is not relevant to OP when OP is upset that work no longer requires employees to wear badges supporting the destruction of women’s spaces in this way.

Well because these were the two options provided in the OP? That was my thinking process- responding to what was in the OP. So rainbow lanyard or plain lanyard. Sorry- I thought that was obvious and simple enough

This was my reply to someone upthread who said lgbt isn’t a protected characteristic. I was correcting them

I don’t think people should be forced into allyship, it’s something people should want to be or it loses meaning. But whether you support it or not, visible allies can make a difference in creating a work environment that feels safer and more inclusive to both colleagues and service users. Of course wearing a badge isn’t the answer to everything, it’s a small change that can help alongside more substantial factors like inclusive policies.

Also, I challenge the idea that being gay is something that happens ‘behind closed doors’ - it’s not just about sex. It’s a part of someone’s identity, whether they’re loud and proud or keep to themselves. And identity impacts how a person sees and experiences the world.

The Supreme Court ruling made it clear that males, no matter how they 'identify' are not Women because the word Woman only applies to females. So they can (and should) be ruled out of any service/facility designated for Women only.

See, that's where I have a problem, as I mentioned upthread: "I couldn't get upset about wearing something designed to show kids they are in a safe space."

To be honest, I felt the same when it was just for LGB, but now with the added T+, what about those vulnerable children who are GC? Where is their safe space to voice their concerns? Or don't they matter because they aren't the minority and at the moment it's all about "BeKind" to a tiny percent of the population? What about the thoughts and feelings of the rest? They are visibly not made to feel welcome in the OP's workplace.

As long as said colleagues are doing their job properly it has nothing to do with you what type of name badge they wear.
My advice would be get on with your job and mind your business.

I care about several 'causes'. I'd object however to being coerced into wearing evidence that I cared (and I'd consider it incredibly shallow were someone to judge me on my objection).

As long as said colleagues are doing their job properly it has nothing to do with you what type of name badge they wear.
My advice would be get on with your job and mind your business.

I care about several 'causes'. I'd object however to being coerced into wearing evidence that I cared (and I'd consider it incredibly shallow were someone to judge me on my objection).

Did you miss the supreme court judgment.

Only holders of a Gender Recognition Certificate can be treated as if they were the opposite sex and only in limited circumstances such as new birth certificates and marriage.

For anything covered by the Equality Act everyone is treated according to biological sex even if they have a gender recognition certificate

Indeed. I'm part of the L and very much support LGB but would refuse to be force-teamed into supporting people who want to remove rights to privacy and safety from girls & women and who think lesbians should accept trans-identifying men who claim to be "lesbians".

You need to reread the Supreme Court judgement. Single sex services can only exist where it is proportionate to exclude the opposite sex and where they do ALL members of the opposite sex are excluded regardless of how they identify. However, it is ALSO legitimate in certain circumstances to exclude those of the same sex if proportionate. The judgement gives an example of a woman who identifies as a man who looks very masculine can be excluded from female services, as well as male services, if it may distress other women.

The Supreme Court also makes it clear under the Equality Act the protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not entitle someone to be treated as the opposite sex. It no longer matters what employment tribunals decided: if they ruled differently then they interpreted the law wrong as the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority.

I said no at my work for a rainbow lanyard. My reason was we need to treat everyone the same no matter what they are. Never asked me again.

Surely it’s just a plain black one or the rainbow one. All seems a bit politically driven to me.

The protected characteristic is not “LGBT” which is the false claim which was made. There are significant conflicts between LGB and T. These were discussed in the Supreme Court ruling. It’s also unlikely that the pc of gender reassignment will apply to everyone “under the trans umbrella” who also count as “LGBT” such as “non binary” people or part time cross dressers.

Oh I see. Well yes, rainbow or plain. Fine.

But do you see the problem with that?

As soon as one of your options is expressing support for a particular political view, the other option tends to be interpreted as expressing opposition to it. So your red lanyard becomes, by default, the "anti LGBT" lanyard.

This issue is all the more acute given that there are only two options. If people could choose between a plain lanyard, a rainbow lanyard, a breast cancer awareness lanyard and an "I like chocolate" lanyard, choosing something other than the rainbow lanyard would be less likely to be seen as a specific "anti rainbow" choice.

That's why I think it would be better to just go back to boring plain lanyards all round. Let people express their support for marginalised groups through meaningful action, not rainbow-washing.