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.

I doubt it would come from a union - they all seem to be captured by extreme misogynistic transgenderists.

Edited to say reread your post and realise you might have meant the discriminatory wording might have come from the union.

I agree with you that a union probably wouldn’t say that people have a legal right to “disagree with LGBT” or whatever.

In your OP you state you have gone to HR and the union about it and you feel ‘really really upset’.

This is the perfect example of why workplaces have completely overstepped in ‘allyship’. Anyone who literally doesn’t nail their colours to the mast is singled out for wrongthink.

Echoing this and Ereshkigalangcleg

And adding your regular Godwin reminder that if you saw a Swastika you wouldn't automatically think "conducive to well-being" or "good fortune" and of it being sacred to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism would you?

It was a symbol that was appropriated by another group.

I think its unacceptable that either logo is on a badge in the work place because its forcing people to display something whether they agree with it or not. To then have a so called "anti" badge is ludicrous and just asking for division and bad feeling.

I wouldn't want to wear either of them.
I don't want things forced on me.
I am not homophobic, I just don't need work items emblazened with campaign logos. There are many other issues closer to my heart, perhaps I could have that logo on a badge?
That too is ludicrous, but no more ludicrous than imposing the rainbow.

Whilst i have an issue with Trans intrusion on womans spaces, I certainly wouldn't wear the "anti" one either, thats a very different statement. I am not anti but I do have real concerns about the trans movement and its dismissal of women. Sex is also a protected characteristic.

I am actually amazed to read here that somebody was refused GRC on the grounds of trying to get pregnant. Mainly because every organisation seems to have gone down the route of ignoring the fact that only women can engage in some biological functions.
Hence the whole "birth givers", "chest feeders", "people who menstruate" nonsense.

It isn't an 'anti' badge. That's the OP hyperventilating and putting their own interpretation on it.

Well quite. Isn't it just the thing... ?

It may not be intended as anti, but anti is exactly how it will be interpreted when there is a choice. It puts people in a difficult position and it shouldn't be happening.
People should be able to go to work without having campaigns of any kind inflicted on them.

Well that's the problem with positioning the rainbow as the default badge rather than saying, everyone gets a red badge unless they decide to make a choice to have a rainbow badge.

And that in itself is mismanagement and isn't inclusive.

You can blame the existence of another badge for managements poor decision making and communication. The badge is neutral. Management aren't. And this in itself places anyone who doesn't want a rainbow badge in a position where they may be harassed.

And this just goes back to the whole problem of rainbow badges and why they should be consigned to the dustbin.

Indeed the General Medical Council will end up (very much against their will I suspect) having to manage that problem as I understand that people have raised concerns over that part of his witness statement along with his expecation that staff should ignore the lack of consent if a woman asked for same sex care.

I would be as concerned that NHS Fife have to date choosen to be silent on the lack of consent issue a that results in a vulnerable woman seeking medical help being faced with two people who expect her to allow a male access to her body when she clearly asked for that not to happen.

Abso-fucking-lutely

I just can't get over the fact that this is a NAME badge.

The purpose of a name badge is to indicate your name, company and perhaps your role. The idea that it should signal your feelings about one particular group of users is absolutely bonkers to me.

If it was a lanyard or a pin that would be one thing. But a name badge is so functional and everyone presumably has to have one.

Even saying the default is plain but there is a rainbow badge risks harassment - in either direction. Plus if you allow specific causes or beliefs to be promoted in the workplace then you cannot discriminate against other beliefs being promoted. Far better to maintain a neutral work environment.

The GMC doesn’t record sex of doctors and allows a male doctor (eg Theodore Upton) to come off the register and a false record created listing him as female gender under a different name.

I'd struggle a bit with the "T" these days and how it could be interpreted in conflict with my views around women's rights, especially safe spaces for women and girls, sex based crime reporting, and women's sports.

Also my lesbian friend has had a lot of worries around this, she's recently ceased as a diversity rep in her work place due to conflicts about people saying she should be happy to date/have sex with bio men who present as female....

I was about to say this.

The GMC has also been subject of court action around physician assistants/associates and declared they do not have a patient safety role.

Who does and what the hell are they doing about this?

Therein lies the problem

Your work is important. Your job is in, I assume, a prestigious area of the public sector and you're getting angry about..... a badge with a rainbow on it? You're getting angry over badges? Is this where so much focus and energy goes? On badges?

Well quite.

Yeah also this. People have died because of the wrong actions of physicians associates.

I know a doctor (a gp) who asked for an appointment with their own gp to discuss a medical issue and got a patient associate who hadn’t heard of the thing the doctor was there to discuss, googled it and said “you need to see a GP” 🤯🙄🤦‍♀️

Today in the news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3yz4q9p4po

Seven people have died following multiple failures by a heart surgeon who continues to work for the NHS, the BBC has learned.

And

Serious concerns about Ms Booth's performance at the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle were first raised by her colleagues in 2018 - but the hospital did not launch an investigation until 2021. Ms Booth is currently working as a mentor to other surgeons at the Freeman, which plans to allow her to resume her surgical career shortly.

And

Ms Booth, a heart and transplant surgeon, did not respond to any of the BBC's questions. The hospital told the BBC that the General Medical Council (GMC), the UK's regulator for doctors, is investigating Ms Booth but there are currently no restrictions on her practice

What does the GMC actually DO?