Unisons proposal on ‘Non binary includion’

[Elisheva]

As a member of Unison I have been asked to forward my opinions on a couple of the issues being raised at the upcoming Women’s Conference.
One of them is Non binary inclusion.
I would appreciate your help in phrasing my objections as I’m not very good at being clear, and tend to come across as a bit irrational and ranty!

It’s on page 22 www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2017/12/2018-Womens-Conference-Final-Agenda.pdf

The Factsheet on non binary inclusion www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2017/06/non-binary-inclusion.doc

What are your ranty injections and someone clever will sculpt them!

Objections FGS

I’m in Unison but haven’t had this - will have a look on their website.

Elisheva
I don't know if this would be of help but Rebecca Reilly-Cooper has a very good blog post on gender “Gender is not a binary, it’s a spectrum”: some problems

rebeccarc.com/2016/01/06/gender-is-not-a-binary/#more-648

As usual they have great difficulty splitting out the idea of sex and gender, and which words they're using for which

Sex: physical features including genes, hormones, internal organs and external features. Not binary.

Saying this, but completely failing to mention intersex at any point. I think this could be explained better - eg. Vast majority of people are male or female, some people have genetic or hormonal differences that are described as intersex.

Sex: assigned at birth and recorded on birth certificate. This 'legal sex' is rarely relevant. Currently binary in the UK. Changed by applying to Gender Recognition Panel.

Given the above, they should dump all this 'assigned' nonsense - sex at birth is fine, and as to legal sex rarely being relevant, how do they square that with their previous statement - assuming that they really mean sex not gender here:

Gender is important in UNISON. We use gender monitoring and rules on proportionality to address historic, institutional discrimination against women and women's under-representation

Thank you for your responses.
I’m ranty about the very tone of the proposal, the references to scaremongering and the underlying assumption that everyone agrees with them, or at least would if only they understood. The referral to the ‘myth’ that there is no conflict between women’s rights and non binary inclusion.
I also want to raise the fact the everyone is non binary, and that although they’re bleating on about removing gender stereotypes they are in fact reinforcing them.

It's awful that there's no acknowledgement of sex, just a vague reference to gender identity and this idea of male and female traits...

"This 'legal sex' is rarely relevant." - I find this an astonishing statement. It seems to totally deny any kind of sex based discrimination.

You could try pointing out that gender identity is a belief system that not everyone believes in. The Equalities Act protects women as a sex, nothing to do with belief in gender identity.

Point 1)
''More than half of UNISONs women members meet the criteria in terms of being classed as low paid however these women are not always represented throughout our union structures''

''Often branches struggle to find a low paid women member to attend conferences or hold seats at regional meetings, why is this the case?''

Is that a serious question?
How can UNISON how to address this issue if they also pretend biological sex is irrelevant?

Like others have said it's the conflation of sex and gender that is the problem.

Non-binary people are people whose gender identity is not solely male or female.

I can almost understand man or woman used here but male and female are terms for sex, not gender.

For example, work on non-binary inclusion involves challenging gender stereotyping, which is a common component of sexism and which places limitations on girls‘ and women‘s hopes, ambitions, job choices and consequently pay.

Conflating sex and gender is a common component of sexism and which places limitations on girls‘ and women‘s hopes, ambitions, job choices and consequently pay.

Often branches struggle to find a low paid women member to attend conferences or hold seats at regional meetings, why is this the case?
Erm maybe its because these activities often take place outwith working hours. Women are too busy trying to juggle paid work and family responsibilites....

Whenever I read this crap I feel very depressed about the intellectual powers of humankind. Is everyone stupid? Is there a more charitable explanation?