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.

This is such an important point

Or change it to ‘white people’ during the American Civil Rights Movement…

If you change a statement to a different statement about a different group, at a different time with different politics then it means something different and is irrelevant to the current situation concerning the destruction of women’s rights.

It's not just a badge though, it's their name badge. Having any kind of political/values type statement on a name badge seems very odd to me.

You’ll get some AI or activist slop. People have explained why you are wrong. You are wrong.

I support people who are lgbtq as I have friends and family who are but as a heterosexual woman I wouldn’t feel comfortable with wearing a rainbow badge. Choosing not to doesn’t make me anti-lgbtq , it just means I don’t want my sexuality/gender confused or questioned.

fair point
I am pro women’s rights
can supporting inclusivity of LGBTQ and women’s rights co- exist?
I think they can

The law says that your LGBT is not protected.

Just as people have claiming that men were protected under the PC "sex = woman" for years and the courts made it clear that they were not so to have the courts ruled on GR.

T is not a PC and never has been.

Transsexual people is not the same as "transgender"

[(Edit to add spacing that MN ate 🤨)
.
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.
.
(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons. ]

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.

And its the overreach by dismissive hand waver that has people like the OP (who works with vulnerable young people) making this kind of ignorent statement.

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.

If her HR had been hired on the basis if having actual professional knowledge her employer has a massive problem as it is relying on HR staff who openly bully harass and discriminate.

And the peanut gallery have been busy embedding that culture through out the OPs organisation.

NHS Fife has done such a good job with their culture that professional medical professionals included have claimed under oath that they could not with years of medical training recognise a woman.

And one senior male staff member wanted to send a female staff member to prison for objecting to the claim that she had a contract obligation to provide a strip show for any male staff member.

If you think the only way you can support and show support and inclusion for the LGBT community is by virtue signalling with a rainbow badge you really need start getting your head out your arse tbh.

Well it really depends

Women's rights to single sex spaces cannot co-exist with men demanding access to these spaces on the grounds of their 'gender identity'.

How can you protect women’s rights if you are unable to define the group ‘women’ because transgenderists demand that it includes any man who wants to be called a woman?

No you haven’t. You have claimed that “LGBT” is a protected characteristic. It is not, and never has been. “LGBT” holds that a “trans woman” is a woman and a lesbian if only attracted to women. The Equality Act itself as per FWS holds that the same person is a straight man. Straight people are protected under “sexual orientation” along with homosexual and bisexual people, and most, but not all people who identify as trans are “transsexuals” protected under “gender reassignment”.

This is mainly for the benefit of others, as you seem to be unable to grasp what it means.

I imagine it was imposed top down after a few activist types helpfully suggested it would be “inclusive” and people were less equipped to challenge it. I imagine there have been some complaints behind the scenes and they were forced to change the policy. It doesn’t seem like they’re that au fait with legal developments in this space.

And to point out if its funded from tax funds the culture and direct action of the HR staff puts its whole funding at risk as the Funder has a legal obligation under the EA10 to not fund discriminating bodies.

149 Public sector equality duty
.
(1)A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—
(a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;
(b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
(c)foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
.
(2)A person who is not a public authority but who exercises public functions must, in the exercise of those functions, have due regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
.
(3)Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—
(a)remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;
(b)take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;
(c)encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.
.
(4)The steps involved in meeting the needs of disabled persons that are different from the needs of persons who are not disabled include, in particular, steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities.
.
(5)Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—
(a)tackle prejudice, and
(b)promote understanding.
.
(6)Compliance with the duties in this section may involve treating some persons more favourably than others; but that is not to be taken as permitting conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by or under this Act.
.
(7)The relevant protected characteristics are—

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex;
• sexual orientation.
• .

(8)A reference to conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act includes a reference to— (a)a breach of an equality clause or rule; (b)a breach of a non-discrimination rule. (9)Schedule 18 (exceptions) has effect.

There has been a recent case of a woman refused a GRC because she was trying to get pregnant and this was deemed as 'not living as the opposite sex' and therefore could not be considered as going through transition.

She couldn't claim discrimination in certain situations (though could if mistaken for trans) which ironically means she would retain rights relating to maternity which she otherwise wouldn't get.

So people declaring they are trans clearly isn't necessarily enough. We also have many questionable cases of sudden prison onset transition.

Then we have non-binary people claiming they are trans. This is legal twaddle.

Gender reassignment also isn't applicable in certain situations under the Equality Act so declaring yourself trans is utterly meaningless in those scenarios anyway.

Yes there is a massive difference legally between claiming you are trans and having the legally recognised status of 'going through the process of gender reassignment or having transitioned'. The actual legal definition DOES matter. We DON'T have self ID - again this matters.

A man entering a woman's changing room and the police being called, can't just decide then and there he's trans. A man with a beard who just wears makeup and still calls himself Dave would be pushing his luck in legal terms in certain scenarios (but would still have other legal protections anyway).

It matters.

Exactly legal definitions matter. We had a whole court case about this and how you can't conflate meaning using other words. The exact wording is the only wording that is legal.

NHS Fife has done such a good job with their culture that professional medical professionals included have claimed under oath that they could not with years of medical training recognise a woman.

This is very concerning. For anyone under any doubt what harm this ideology has caused.

I would hope everyone who chooses to work with kids is ready for ANY conversation.

I agree, and they probably are. But to the vulnerable child who has a problem with the LGBT+ for whatever reason (perhaps religious for the LGB or just GC for the T+), then the rainbow badge indicates the wearer might not be a safe space.

So the wearer thinks they are saying "Hey, I'm a safe space, I accept you, whoever you are" when in reality what it looks like they are saying is, "Hey, I'm a safe space, I accept you! (But only if you are LGBT+ and if you aren't then I'm going to give you a lecture about #BeKind!)".

It is both

The political element is change required in law to have equal rights and changes which would recognise the differences.

MLK wanted all the children treated as equal and to be allowed to go to school together.

Elements of "BLM" want the right to exclude "white" children from spaces in the "mixed" schools.

Why should people be forced to wear something they don't believe in? And if these people are vulnerable, they should be protested from this ideology.

I think LGB rights and women's rights can absolutely co-exist. There is no conflict here.

The problem is the T+.

When one group of people believes they identify as the opposite sex to the ones they actually are, how can that not have an impact of the sex based rights of other people?

If trans people were only asking not to be discriminated against for how they choose to present, but not demanding to be treated as though they are actually a member of the opposite sex in situations where sex matters, there would be no conflict. But that's not the case.

Unfortunately the rainbow flag has come to encompass a set of different viewpoints, some of which I fully support (people should have the right to marry their same sex partners, for example), and some of which I completely disagree with (trans women should have the right to use women's single sex spaces and anyone who disagrees is a bigot). So unfortunately I don't think the rainbow flag is currently compatible with feminism.

Bumping this important post.

I totally agree with this. Very well expressed.

What is your meaning of T?

Is it GR recognising Dave is a male with a PC or T Dave with his beard and demand to be seen as having a PC= woman

Then what is your meaning of Q?

Or the other Q and A and the I and +

Forced teaming of inclusive and rights is a problem as rights can and at times have to be excluding

I'd still love someone to tell me what they think is covered by the +

I don't see what that poster has to do with being on the left. Being on the left doesn't mean being utterly ridiculous and incoherent.

What vulnerable young people need is steady supportive relationships that help them experience safety, so they can grow up better able to navigate relationships and discern for themselves whether people who claim to be 'safe adults' actually pass the sniff test.

We can't replicate or even approximate that by handing out colour-coded badges. Badges,like mumnet usernames, can be used to conceal or contrive.

There are so many nonsense threads around at the moment that are so poorly conceived that it's almost as though the authors are copying directly from the stonewall playbook.

It also just sounds like a really clumsy, inaccurate interpretation of Forstater/Higgs/the gay cake case. “It’s the right of people not to agree with LGBT in the workplace”. Whether this wording came from HR or the “union” or whether it came second hand is important. It doesn’t sound like HR is particularly competent if so.