Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Rainbow badges at work - upset

1000 replies

whatishappening123 · 01/10/2025 14:08

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
WallTree · 02/10/2025 06:51

FOJN · 01/10/2025 14:39

No it isn't. There are 9 protected characteristics and LGBT is not one of them. The EA 2010 says you cannot be discriminated against because of your sexual orientation.

And gender reassignment is another of the protected characteristics. So yes, LGBT is covered by two of the protected characteristics.

Sunsetswimming · 02/10/2025 06:56

Ereshkigalangcleg · 01/10/2025 22:00

It isn’t. I am no longer taking your posts with any degree of seriousness @Sunsetswimming

It is the law. Denying it doesn’t make it any less so. You have really shown a lot about your character in these posts

Sunsetswimming · 02/10/2025 06:57

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Yes as I’ve said several times

Sunsetswimming · 02/10/2025 06:57

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 01/10/2025 22:04

Well it isn't.

Sexuality (which includes L, G and B but also heterosexuals) is one.

Gender reassignment is another.

So LGBT is not a protected characteristic, although all people within this group will have the protected characteristic of sexuality (including those who are heterosexual, as many trans people are), and some of them will have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Identities such as queer and non binary are not protected at all.

Edited

Yes I have said this several times up thread

TheKeatingFive · 02/10/2025 07:03

WallTree · 02/10/2025 06:51

And gender reassignment is another of the protected characteristics. So yes, LGBT is covered by two of the protected characteristics.

Well no. Gender reassignment and T are not exactly the same thing,

@RedToothBrush has a good explanation upthread

Sunsetswimming · 02/10/2025 07:06

AnSolas · 01/10/2025 23:10

You are trying a slight of hand as you have moved your claim from T to GR

Individuals with T identity may or may not be included under the PC of GR

The courts have ruled that the PC only applies if (one of each) □ and ○ and ¤ can be "ticked"

Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person
□ is proposing to undergo,
□ is undergoing or
□ has undergone
a process (or part of a process)
○ for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing,
¤ physiological or
¤ other attributes
of sex.

So the bloke who liked to wear a skirt and make up and growing out his beard and tinker with his range rover engine while wearing massive rings while keeping his penis and all other body parts in their original physical state may call himself T

However in legal terms as he fails to tick the ○ as he never intends to tick either one of the ¤ boxes so the law sees him as being in the same class as the bloke who lost his NB court case.

It isn’t a slight of hand to tell someone who said that transgender isn’t a protected characteristic to tell them it is as it falls under gender reassignment. These are not claims of mine, it is a law. There’s a lot of people here arguing with me for pointing out what the law says, even when I provided the link to the govt website. It’s pointless and a massive waste of all our time as the law remains as it is regardless of anyone’s views on transgender people

GagMeWithASpoon · 02/10/2025 07:07

whatishappening123 · 02/10/2025 00:06

They genuinely did
If you read my updates you see me clearly discussing the issue. Do report me for lying if you like. Mn will look at my user history and see I am.genuine and haven't had anything ever removed for lying or misrepresenting

If they genuinely said that and put it forward as a binary option of for or against, then that’s a fuck up. But it’s an HR/person who made that statement fuck up. Nothing to do with your colleagues that don’t want to wear the rainbow.

If I was one of your red badge colleagues (and I would be ) I would be complaining myself for attributing negative connotations to my neutrality or refusal to be political at work. They don’t get to decide , label and then make sure it’s obvious to others what I’m for or against.

TheKeatingFive · 02/10/2025 07:09

Sunsetswimming · 02/10/2025 07:06

It isn’t a slight of hand to tell someone who said that transgender isn’t a protected characteristic to tell them it is as it falls under gender reassignment. These are not claims of mine, it is a law. There’s a lot of people here arguing with me for pointing out what the law says, even when I provided the link to the govt website. It’s pointless and a massive waste of all our time as the law remains as it is regardless of anyone’s views on transgender people

Transgender doesn't 'fall under' gender reassignment though. Gender reassignment means something quite specific

TheKeatingFive · 02/10/2025 07:10

OP, if everything you're saying here is true, I'd lodge some sort of complaint against HR. They have handled this appallingly

CatchingtheCat · 02/10/2025 07:15

TheKeatingFive · 02/10/2025 07:10

OP, if everything you're saying here is true, I'd lodge some sort of complaint against HR. They have handled this appallingly

If what OP has said is true then HR then HR could find themselves facing a legal claim for harassment from those who do not want to wear the rainbow badge.

Sunsetswimming · 02/10/2025 07:25

TheKeatingFive · 02/10/2025 07:09

Transgender doesn't 'fall under' gender reassignment though. Gender reassignment means something quite specific

Gender reassignment is also for those planning to or wishing to undergo transition. Try googling is transgender a protected characteristic if you don’t believe me

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 02/10/2025 07:26

Sunsetswimming · 02/10/2025 07:25

Gender reassignment is also for those planning to or wishing to undergo transition. Try googling is transgender a protected characteristic if you don’t believe me

Not all trans people are planning to undergo any kind of transition.

CatchingtheCat · 02/10/2025 07:27

Sunsetswimming · 02/10/2025 07:06

It isn’t a slight of hand to tell someone who said that transgender isn’t a protected characteristic to tell them it is as it falls under gender reassignment. These are not claims of mine, it is a law. There’s a lot of people here arguing with me for pointing out what the law says, even when I provided the link to the govt website. It’s pointless and a massive waste of all our time as the law remains as it is regardless of anyone’s views on transgender people

It doesn’t matter how many times you post your link, it still doesn’t change the fact that gender reassignment and transgender are different things. If anything, transgender falls under ‘religion or belief’ but has yet to be tested if it is ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’. We do know however that the judge in the Adam’s v ERCC case ruled that the version of transgenderism practiced there was ‘extreme’ and yet this extremist transgenderist belief is similar to that practiced by many.

TheKeatingFive · 02/10/2025 07:27

Sunsetswimming · 02/10/2025 07:25

Gender reassignment is also for those planning to or wishing to undergo transition. Try googling is transgender a protected characteristic if you don’t believe me

Planning would involve concrete action. Not just 'oh I was definitely getting round it'

As I've already said @RedToothBrush has clarified this point upthread via the actual Equality Act

CatchingtheCat · 02/10/2025 07:35

Try googling is transgender a protected characteristic if you don’t believe me

Why would I do that rather than looking at the actual law? Google would throw back people like you trying to pretend the law is something they want it to be rather than what it is. Plenty of organisations have been purposefully setting out to destroy women’s rights and impose gendering beliefs by telling people things are the law when they are not.

JFDIYOLO · 02/10/2025 07:36

Why should lgbt+ service users get a special badge?

Why not neurodivergent, refugee, abuse survivor users, etc etc etc?

I think the singling out one group for special virtue signalling is more of an issue.

SerafinasGoose · 02/10/2025 07:37

TheKeatingFive · 01/10/2025 22:42

If HR genuinely positioned the name badges as 'for' or 'against' lgbtq, then they all want sacking.

What an extraordinary and appalling thing to do.

It's implicit whether they openly stated that intention or not. The choice of the colour red to 'represent' the dissenters is no accident, IMO. Might as well hang a bell around their necks and make them shout 'unclean!'

It's disgusting that some employers are still pulling antics like this.

AnSolas · 02/10/2025 07:52

Sunsetswimming · 02/10/2025 06:57

Yes as I’ve said several times

Nope read the thread because GR is not the same as T and the courts have ruled that.

Swiftie1878 · 02/10/2025 07:56

Meem321 · 01/10/2025 20:13

😘 that'll teach me to idly scroll. I didn't realise there was so much anger here.

There is a lot of anger. It’s not against you, personally. It’s that a lot of women who support the Trans ideology are woefully uneducated on the implications for women, and that can be frustrating.
Please don’t feel bashed, but if you’re interested in the issue (one way or the other) please read and listen to both sides of the argument.

tigger1001 · 02/10/2025 07:56

I woukd be another refusing to wear a rainbow lanyard or badge. Has zero place in the workplace.

and if anyone commented negatively about my lack of rainbow, I woukd raise a complaint.

my views are protected in law and therefore should be respected in work. And a company that chose not to, isn't one I want to work for anyway

CatchingtheCat · 02/10/2025 07:58

Anyone wishing to pursue a harassment case against this company could use OPs post as an example of how it has created a hostile and intimidating environment for those with GC or other beliefs.

Hulabalu · 02/10/2025 08:11

thelakeisle1 · 02/10/2025 04:07

Rainbow badges are a political declaration. This has been true for some time now. Anyone pretending otherwise is lying.

They have no place being foisted on anyone, anywhere, regardless of their job. It is an overstep by bosses, coercive and abusive to force anybody to wear political declarations at work.

How fantastic that your employers are finally acknowledging this.

Edited

But change “LGBTQ” people to “Black” people during American Civil Rights Movement and it wouldn’t be a political statement to wear a badge in support of Black rights. But a human rights statement.
Saying this , I support female only spaces and sporting events.

Hulabalu · 02/10/2025 08:15

Hulabalu · 02/10/2025 08:11

But change “LGBTQ” people to “Black” people during American Civil Rights Movement and it wouldn’t be a political statement to wear a badge in support of Black rights. But a human rights statement.
Saying this , I support female only spaces and sporting events.

I think the intention is inclusivity rather than a political statement
LGBTQ have felt the need to hide themselves in work place for years. Many years ago I used to work with a lovely guy in his 50s. So sure he was gay but he never would have talked about this at work and a couple of the guys would lightly make a joke about it if he wasn’t there. I would tell them to grow up.
Live & let live as long as not hurting anyone.

RedToothBrush · 02/10/2025 08:15

whatishappening123 · 02/10/2025 05:23

None of this has happened

You whispering in the corner with your mate about the 'anti-lgbt' badges would constitute harassment so I'd make sure you don't do that.

The trouble here is that these badges have become a tool for harassment. Anyone who in someway singled themselves out by not wearing one, made themselves a target for comments and criticism in the past. This wasn't ok, and represented creating a situation where employees were actively unable to complain or exercise their own beliefs - and we aren't talking about raging homophobic 'flag shagging' 'gammon' or 'karen' Reform or Trump supporters here. In some cases this was left wing individuals who had a history of gay rights activism but saw problems with growing authoritarianism within their own movement and had been the victims of abuse for questioning what was happening.

These badges - rather than making things inclusive - we're used as a way of shutting down vulnerable individuals. Many lesbians went back in the closet. I've heard, personally, of minor acts of defiance within large law firms by women who fit into this category. They didn't feel able to challenge what management were doing.

So these badges, far from encouraging inclusion, were weaponised - sometimes against the very people they were supposed to show support for.

Unfortunately the problem was allies got carried away and the T decided to run roughshot over the LG and the B. Stonewall decided to lose its mind and ignored a huge percentage of its cohort because it knew better.

When you have the founders of Stonewall actively upping sticks and reforming another group citing homophobia at Stonewall you should have paused for thought.

The Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex identified the huge problem at the heart of this - if you replace sex with gender then homosexuals lose their legal protection. If you can see sex, you can't prevent abuse by heterosexual people forcing themselves into homosexual groups and demanding that their lady penises be tried (or it's discrimination) or that gay men embrace the vagina. This is regressive.

These badges were all about saying 'we follow Stonewall law' and trying to intimidate anyone who disagreed - including from the LGB community. These companies and organisations were telling employees - and are still telling employees - if you don't suck this up and you don't adhere to what we say we will take action against you and you with be social pariahs. We don't care about how this impacts you and we certainly don't care about your rights. The only 'rights' that matters are the ones that Stonewall got us to sign up to in our diversity programme.

The meaning of the rainbow badges was corrupted and changed by Stonewalls dominance and monopoly. This is now being exposed but unfortunately the damage has now been done and it's no longer a symbol of inclusion. It's a symbol associated with mens rights activism, homophobia and totalitarianism against free speech for many. It's not a symbol of neutrality and support and safety for LGBT people. It has a new layer of meaning and symbolism which is a political statement and no longer necessarily even 'belongs' to LGBT people. The irony is that many so called do gooder allies, were so radicalised by it that that bullied and silenced many gay people within the grassroots community. Heterosexuals colonised the flag.

When you have people into organisations getting upset that 'service users need the flag to know they are safe' or however the OP phrases it, you know you have a disconnect between the person saying this and actual service users. They can't possibly know how service users feel about the flag and it's totally ignorant about LGBT issues from the last five years. It says that those providing the service have lost touch with the community and only follow what the corporate policy is. It says that service provider think waving a flag is enough to demonstrate they are aware of issues and understand those using the service. It says they don't have the first fucking clue about how it actually impacts on the ground and the potential harm it does. Post Forstater it was tone deaf. Post Cass this is appalling. Post Supreme Court it's just fucking belligerent and a massive fuck you to women, children, those with complex needs like autism and to homosexuals.

If you can't grasp the last five to seven years of this and are still getting upset about a red bloody badge then frankly you shouldn't be dealing with the public and you need to actually get to grips with the concept that the LGBT community is not a blob of lemmings who all think the same way. Perhaps start treating your service users as individuals rather than acting like a sausage factory which puts everyone into nice little safe packages without ever making a connection with individuals and building up trust the old fashioned way.

Badges are a lazy, out dated, politicised, counter productive, diversive tool which are now doing far more harm than good and undermine inclusivity and make many feel excluded and isolated. They legitimise harassment and abuse.

They should go in the bin at this point.

And I question the judgement, awareness and impartiality of anyone still standing by them at this point.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/10/2025 08:17

RedToothBrush · 02/10/2025 08:15

You whispering in the corner with your mate about the 'anti-lgbt' badges would constitute harassment so I'd make sure you don't do that.

The trouble here is that these badges have become a tool for harassment. Anyone who in someway singled themselves out by not wearing one, made themselves a target for comments and criticism in the past. This wasn't ok, and represented creating a situation where employees were actively unable to complain or exercise their own beliefs - and we aren't talking about raging homophobic 'flag shagging' 'gammon' or 'karen' Reform or Trump supporters here. In some cases this was left wing individuals who had a history of gay rights activism but saw problems with growing authoritarianism within their own movement and had been the victims of abuse for questioning what was happening.

These badges - rather than making things inclusive - we're used as a way of shutting down vulnerable individuals. Many lesbians went back in the closet. I've heard, personally, of minor acts of defiance within large law firms by women who fit into this category. They didn't feel able to challenge what management were doing.

So these badges, far from encouraging inclusion, were weaponised - sometimes against the very people they were supposed to show support for.

Unfortunately the problem was allies got carried away and the T decided to run roughshot over the LG and the B. Stonewall decided to lose its mind and ignored a huge percentage of its cohort because it knew better.

When you have the founders of Stonewall actively upping sticks and reforming another group citing homophobia at Stonewall you should have paused for thought.

The Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex identified the huge problem at the heart of this - if you replace sex with gender then homosexuals lose their legal protection. If you can see sex, you can't prevent abuse by heterosexual people forcing themselves into homosexual groups and demanding that their lady penises be tried (or it's discrimination) or that gay men embrace the vagina. This is regressive.

These badges were all about saying 'we follow Stonewall law' and trying to intimidate anyone who disagreed - including from the LGB community. These companies and organisations were telling employees - and are still telling employees - if you don't suck this up and you don't adhere to what we say we will take action against you and you with be social pariahs. We don't care about how this impacts you and we certainly don't care about your rights. The only 'rights' that matters are the ones that Stonewall got us to sign up to in our diversity programme.

The meaning of the rainbow badges was corrupted and changed by Stonewalls dominance and monopoly. This is now being exposed but unfortunately the damage has now been done and it's no longer a symbol of inclusion. It's a symbol associated with mens rights activism, homophobia and totalitarianism against free speech for many. It's not a symbol of neutrality and support and safety for LGBT people. It has a new layer of meaning and symbolism which is a political statement and no longer necessarily even 'belongs' to LGBT people. The irony is that many so called do gooder allies, were so radicalised by it that that bullied and silenced many gay people within the grassroots community. Heterosexuals colonised the flag.

When you have people into organisations getting upset that 'service users need the flag to know they are safe' or however the OP phrases it, you know you have a disconnect between the person saying this and actual service users. They can't possibly know how service users feel about the flag and it's totally ignorant about LGBT issues from the last five years. It says that those providing the service have lost touch with the community and only follow what the corporate policy is. It says that service provider think waving a flag is enough to demonstrate they are aware of issues and understand those using the service. It says they don't have the first fucking clue about how it actually impacts on the ground and the potential harm it does. Post Forstater it was tone deaf. Post Cass this is appalling. Post Supreme Court it's just fucking belligerent and a massive fuck you to women, children, those with complex needs like autism and to homosexuals.

If you can't grasp the last five to seven years of this and are still getting upset about a red bloody badge then frankly you shouldn't be dealing with the public and you need to actually get to grips with the concept that the LGBT community is not a blob of lemmings who all think the same way. Perhaps start treating your service users as individuals rather than acting like a sausage factory which puts everyone into nice little safe packages without ever making a connection with individuals and building up trust the old fashioned way.

Badges are a lazy, out dated, politicised, counter productive, diversive tool which are now doing far more harm than good and undermine inclusivity and make many feel excluded and isolated. They legitimise harassment and abuse.

They should go in the bin at this point.

And I question the judgement, awareness and impartiality of anyone still standing by them at this point.

👏

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread