To ‘out’ or not to ‘out’ re GC position

[IAmSproutycus]

Simply that. I’m at the point where I’m debating whether I’m more use staying publicly reasonably schtum (I’ve already tackled this a bit with my very large public sector employer and been roundly silenced at HR level) or whether it’s more use for me to talk out more openly, e.g on Twitter/push the issue at work. I am aware that there is the possibility (probability) that due to my job the TRAs might find me interesting to try to take down (that sounded really grandiose and knobby - I mean they might feel that they can argue I shouldn’t be in a position where I might ‘wrongly’ influence vulnerable people. I’m sure that in the grand scheme they may not give a turkey’s butthole about little old me and my opinions). Anyway, how can I/we be of most use? Yes, it’s feeling horribly risky, and I’m very aware that many people don’t have the emotional, mental, or physical resources to be able to speak out right now. I’m not sure that I do, either tbh. Sorry for the confused and rambly thoughts. In essence, do I go the route of supporting the inestimable stickerwoman etc (which I will continue to do) or do I
/(we?) add my name to the people who will speak openly about this. God, I’m beginning to sound a bit TRA meself (what about meme me meme me me me 😳😀)

Am in the very same boat. Have been avoiding doing anything on Twitter/Facebook etc as too frightened. But did my very first consciousness raising over dinner last night with a load of blokes and they all got it and we had a good discussion. It was quite helpful to practice arguing it too.
But I cannot link it to my real life online presence - such a nightmare. Partly through work but mostly for my DC who are at stages in their lives where this would be a problem. Have been debating the need to create a new online ID, right down to changing my Facebook and Mumsnet name, to allow me to be more public.

I wouldn't push it at work personally.
Work is for work, not pushing agendas. But I would raise something at work if it was in response to a change or new policy etc.

I tend to find it's best mentioning stories or news articles as they crop up in conversation and let people decide themselves. Often any critically aware adult sees the emperor has no clothes on quite quickly. It's getting issues into the mainstream.

E.g. I was talking about the Last leg and Caitlyn Jenner was on. They were discussing the Eddie Redmaine film about a trans woman. Caitlyn openly said she has no issue with the part going to a non trans actor when lots of the community were raging. She said that she was actively advised by staff not to go public with that view because of the potential reaction. Then at a party she wanted to go and congratulate Eddie and was advised it was best for her to stay away from him because of the potential backlash.

It was really interesting and I'm sure that anyone who saw it (especially people new to the issues) would be wondering what sort of movement would have a go at a trans woman for supporting an actor playing a part?

Maisypops I raised it directly related to a new policy. The information was entirely inaccurate.

Oh. That s bad that HR aren't considering other views.
The thing is I would imagine if it's an obvious issue then most people would see it quite quickly, once the information has been given. Do you have a couple of friends at work where you could discuss? (Dare I say it preferably one of them male as that seems to still have currency plus it shows that it's issues for both sexes).

No one willing to put head above parapet 😔

No, don't discuss this with your colleagues, not face to face, in an email, or on social media. We say this on every single thread; it can be construed as harassment or bullying.

If HR are making a mistake such as stopping Muslim women from using the toilet by making it mixed sex, tackle that. Get some support from ACAS. Frame it as a loss of the rights women are entitled to and focus on that.

I would leave it for now, as the tide is turning and I reckon it will soon become more acceptable to voice gc concerns. With self-id there is an awful lot of devil in the detail, and this it starting to be recognised.

What may also emerge is how much money has been spent by large and public organisations on 'diversity' training often delivered by a small number of niche firms. Whether you are sceptical of the TRA position or not, it would be hard to argue against a level of financial vested interest. The AC affair will serve to highlight the way relatively young and inexperienced people like her, LM etc have been able to pick up paid work via the need for organisations to prove diversity credentials.

I did lose a friend when I revealed my position but came to the conclusion she can't really have been my friend anyway.

I would be careful at work. But socially be open and respectful. If we allow fear to shut us up.... hey there next Germany.....

Agree with ucantargue. Respectful and factual. We don't need to be silent. Esp outside of the workplace.

I drop wee stories of the "did you see that? What's taking on, the world is crazy" type into conversations and on SM. Then I leave it at that. I don't take a stance except the "world is mad!" I'm non judgemental about the overall picture, I just comment on the individual scandals. People will get defensive and upset if we generalise, but its terribly difficult to argue against the crimes of Challoner et al. I have a massive advantage as I'm self employed, my risks are minimal.

Going on, not taking on. Blinking autocorrect...

sociopathsunited
Exactly.
There's often no need to become a social media warrior. (Plus I have some friends very much indoctrinated into the TRA influence within LGTBQA+ etc movement)

I shared about the man who self id-ed as a woman to get on the shortlist to use his privilege in order to prove a point about self ID. Quite a few people said how ridiculous it was that he could even do that and in turn it led to 'but that's exactly what some TRAs want for women's spaces'. And I left it there.

What many people are starting to realise is there is a very big difference between the old school transsexual who nobody has any issues with and the brand of TRA which is more interested in silencing women than trans rights (and might actually be damaging to trans rights because if all you need to do is say 'I am a woman but I want my lady dick' then people who have gender dysphoria may start finding that medical pathways to alleviate their dysphoria get limited)

(I’ve already tackled this a bit with my very large public sector employer and been roundly silenced at HR level)

It would be interesting to understand what this means. I work in HR at an organisation which employs an extremely high profile GC woman, but also has trans inclusive policies and D&I Director with pronouns in her email address so the two ends of the philosophical range can co-exist in an organisation.

I am keen to understand what HR people are actually doing to "silence" if you don't mind giving more details?

I raise it at work but don't have arguments or conversations with colleagues. That would be counterproductive. I agree with the OP: what is the tipping point between being useful inside the tent peeing out, and being useful outside the tent peeing in. We need both. I'm grateful to those peeing in, and I'm grateful to those keeping schtum publicly and peeing out. Does that make sense.

Especially I appreciate that there are people involved in teaching, social policy, social policy implementation, HR, law and so on, who are toiling away trying to change minds on the inside. It must be agonising.

When you say pushing the issue at work does it actually come up at work? If it is in someway related to your work then supposedly it is part of your job to address it?

No, it's not my job, although actually I think is is my job. It's complex, but it's to do with company policy.

I'm sorry, you weren't asking me. Ignore!

charlie
Not so much agonising, but then I don't go to work with a view of changing people's views.
The line at my school and at every school I've worked in is that trans people should be free from discrimination and where there are competing 'rights' the aim is to balance them whilst treating everyone well.
There's no need to get into pushing GC views etc.
We discuss stereotypes, we have groups for girls who like STEM, we have boys who at mentors, we have a full range time extracurricular for both sexes. We allow students to question and debate ideas of gender and equality etc in PSHE. We encourage students to be themselves and support them if they are struggling.

The role of the teacher isn't to push a GC agenda anymore than it is to push a TRA agenda. Our role is to equip the students with the ability to debate, discuss, think critically and develop their own views.

The golden ratio for social media posts is pretty much 1 or 2 GC posts to every 20 - 30. Maximum. Nobody can accuse me of being obsessed, I choose my moments carefully (thank you Jess and Aimee, you've been AMAZING!!!! I LOVE YOU) and I simply state facts and copy newspaper articles. I drop the mic and walk off stage, basically. I'm happy for people to not comment or ignore what I'm saying, but I'm also happy to engage if anyone wants to ask more, or discuss or even disagree.

Sorry, Trousered, keen to not express more explicitly for the purposes of not risking accusations of bringing my own org into disrepute in any way. I hope you understand I’m not trying to be mysterious.

Upstart crow But this is exactly the point. Whilst understanding the very sensible rationale for this, it means that there are changes made in policy and procedure in organisations that are detrimental to the dignity and well being of women which are not being challenged due to (fully legitimate) fear of reprisals. How many little policy changes here, directives there do we leave unchallenged whilst we await some big sea change saviour who will miraculously change things. Even if we ‘win’ the self ID debate, we’re still left with the problematic situation that we started with, and I can’t see anyone back-pedalling on that. The equality act 2010, as I’m sure everyone is well cognisant of, offers protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment NOT at the point of acquiring a GRC, but as soon as that person stated that they intend to transition. That means IMO that we are in point of everyday application already at the point of self ID. Under the existing laws if I intended to misuse the laws for my own nefarious purposes, I could simply argue that I intended to transition. I already would not need any hormone or surgery changes now or indeed ever, and would not need to have signed anything or attended a gender reassignment clinic. (Please correct me if wrong, it’s been a while since I read through this). The changes would make things worse (I think) because the misuse of transgender in place of transsexual in various interviews,thought pieces, tweets etc makes it seems as if the law is applicable to anyone non binary, gender fluid, or whatevs who would like protection under that existing law, so the publicity means that the existing laws are more open to misapplication (again, IMO), but frankly I think we’re already approaching Gilead. I want badly to work under the protection of anonymity but am increasingly aware that I am probably one of the most educated person in my area of work on this issue (God help us all for that alone 😳), and that she. I speak to colleagues they agree with what I say, but feel that they are ‘not the right person’ to push this with HR as they don’t know enough. none of us know ‘enough’, most certainly not me, but I’m starting to wonder, if not me, who? Irrespective of UK law, who will debate in my organisation against the steady and quiet erosion of women’s rights if not me? I don’t have any of the answers to this, and frankly I’d give at least two teeth to have someone bigger, braver, more educated, feistier, and more robust to do this, but I can’t find her.

Charlie makes complete sense. I’m trying to work out from which direction I can pee furthest 😁

Sorry for typos, typing one handed (not in the commonly implied use of that phrase 😁, just on very crap phone!)

IAmSproutycus

I appreciate it is difficult to be specific. My take on this is that the conflict is not YET well understood within organisations.

However HR are generally a lot more pragmatic operationally than the D&I policy specialists are. We are used to trying to balance conflict. Certainly the conversations I have had about this with HR people reassure me that HR won't automatically come down on the side of a male asserting rights which are going to give women difficulty.

IAmSproutycus

I think I understand. I know, in my previous incarnation as an employee of a massive international company, I would not be comfortable sticking my head, individually, above the parapet. I would not trust them to treat my concerns with respect or even to listen to me. I didn't trust them when I left them over a dozen years ago, and so much has changed since then that I suspect that now, I'd be thrown to the lions without a second thought. New starts, who could be proved to be liars and thieves were already more believable than employees with almost 20 years of service. I have absolutely no idea how they'd react to someone not toeing the company line over this current woke bullshit.

I would not trust them to treat my concerns with respect or even to listen to me.

What are your concerns at work? Is it about segregated toilet facilities?