CIPD - article on transgender people in the workplace

[IAmWhoYouSayIAm]

The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD) have focused on transgender people in October’s edition of People Management (this goes to around 100k CIPD members home addresses)

I’m already annoyed and not even half way through...

These issues are being brought into sharp focus by a consultation over the Gender Recognition Act, which could open the way for individuals to ‘self-declare’ their gender, rather than requiring medical certification. This has led a small number of radical feminists to vocally protest that men would theoretically be able to access women-only spaces and services, which has increased anti-trans hostility in some areas but led, too, to a more open discussion about gender identity.

That’s it, there is no more mention of the reasons why it is being protested.

Stonewall and Butterflies reps have their say and focus on the people who are/have transitioned - how they feel in the workplace and their needs etc. Then how ultimately, it’s down to HR to ensure the employees’ wishes are met (lucky me) and communicated to ensure full inclusion by the company, staff, customers etc.

I want to respond to the editor. Help me?

I’m miffed that a 7 page spread hasn’t discussed the repuccusions of self ID other than a sentence recognising that “it’s in consultation”

Full article here:
www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/long-reads/articles/what-doing-support-transgender-staff

Haymarket Publishing is run by Michael Heseltine (or at least it used to be). Worth writing to him too. (Is he in the Lords now - should be easy to find out).

My HR colleague has just peaked (is that the terminology?!) She hasn’t got children so we were talking about the article she’d read and I discussed the girl guides response. She’s furious with it all.

I will email haymarket today.

transwoman sonographer wanted to be able to do mammograms..

Sorry about my ignorance - is sonography a job that doesn't have to involve mammograms? So the person was already doing the job and wanted to add this in?
If so, I'd be questioning why, exactly, they are determined to do this knowing it could be unacceptable to many women.

Any organisation has the right to use single-sex exemptions, as described in the Equality Act, in order to achieve a legitimate aim.

I’d wager given how HR is a female dominated arena that’s there’s more than a few of their own members who can engage their brains and see what a shit show Self ID is about to bring to their workplaces.

And that most of them will have been socialised to follow orders, will not want to risk their jobs, so will do as they're told.

I have written. It would be great if they could have a lot of responses on this, especially as I’m sure there will be lots of fawning over how brave and stunning the article was.

It scares me that there are people like you working in HR 😕

The online article has had a sentence added to the paragraph! I’ve just had to check my hard copy. They’ve linked to something to but haven’t had chance to read it:

These issues are being brought into sharp focus by a consultation over the Gender Recognition Act, which could open the way for individuals to ‘self-declare’ their gender, rather than requiring medical certification. This has led a small number of radical feminists to vocally protest that men would theoretically be able to access women-only spaces and services, which has increased anti-trans hostility in some areas but led, too, to a more open discussion about gender identity. It is a complex area but much opposition to self-declaration overlooks the fact that men would still have to demonstrate they intend to transition in order to access a single sex space.

ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/gender-recognition-reform-the-current-debate-is-misconceived/

It scares me that there are people like you working in HR

Yes, professionals voicing genuine concerns about the risks to their co-workers or service users as a result of Self ID should have everyone quaking in their boots.

Ffs.

It scares me that there are people like you working in HR 😕

@AuntBeastie

It actually scares me that this transgender report in the CIPD lists examples of transgender people having accommodations made in the workplace to suit their needs, eg. communication, pronouns, toilets etc. but fails to recognise the needs of the opposite gender of the transgender person. And specifically of women.

When salaries are compared male vs. female, where does the transgender female sit? Or where does the the “self ID” female sit?

When the company reports 40% females on the board, but actually 10% of that number includes a transgender female, is that accurate and fair representation of women on the board? Does the CEO give 'himself' a pat on the back for getting another female on the board?

And how does a 17 year old female apprentice feel sharing her toilet facilities with a 56 year old transgender female, who identifies as a women but still has male genitalia?

As a HR professional, those are the wider issues I have to face when a person comes in my office and tells me they are transitioning, or that they self ID as the opposite gender.

And, what's worse, I am labelled radical / or trans exclusionary, because I want to debate these points and speak up about the fact women's voices may be ignored when self ID comes in, and people start saying "I feel like a woman today".

There's a common saying - don't judge me until you've walked a mile in my shoes. Come and work in HR and then I'll happily let you judge me.

I wrote a long and considered email to the editor and had a complete brush off.

Here’s a quote
“The purpose of the article as it was stated was not to provide an all-encompassing guide to the legal and practical situation regarding transgender people in the workplace. It was to look at how to support individuals in what is a highly complex and misunderstood situation. I do appreciate there is another side to the story and there are implications regarding GRC and in a differently positioned, or longer, article it would have been possible to go into these.

Unfortunately, from what I have seen, much of the dialogue from those who are opposed to GRC is extremely hostile and they have not taken the opportunity to speak to and understand the perspectives of transgender individuals. This article was an attempt to correct that, by actually meeting and understanding people struggling with some very complex issues in the workplace. I do not believe that focusing on this demonstrated bias or inaccuracy.”

It was seven fucking pages, and nowhere could he find the space to point out there are issues and conflicts?

Please, please write and express your concerns.

What a prick he sounds.

@HermioneWeasley Frustrating. I wrote a very considered email too, earlier today. Yet to get a response but we’ll see.

[email protected] for those who want to write and express their views

Has anyone else written and had a reply?

I'm glad this has popped up, I was furious when I read it. It's not the CIPD's job to redress what they perceive as an unfair debate, but to provide balanced information. The article, IIRC, makes no mention of sex based exemptions within the equality act (a pretty important piece of legislation for HR professionals), and also uses the term CIS without acknowledging that some women would find it offensive.

If I'd read that article a few years ago I have to admit that I wouldn't have objected to it and found it useful, but that was before I read around the subject a lot more (thanks to MN).

I know I've read some great, informative and balanced articles through links on here, but can anyone think of any that are particularly relevant or useful in terms of employment related issues?

I'm in HR too and am dreading the day when I get a trans case

Just to add to the interesting complexities, some intersections of S22 of GRA 2004 and GDPR that could convert a data breach into a criminal liability offence:

Under section 22 of the 2004 act, it is a criminal offence for a person who has obtained 'protected information' in an official capacity to disclose that information to any other person. Protected information includes a person's application for legal recognition of their acquired gender or, if they have legal recognition, their gender history.

The Employment Lawyers Association says a section 22 breach does not require the disclosure to be malicious or intended to harm the trans person: 'Indeed the disclosure may be with the express intention of helping the trans person (and indeed may in fact help them) but would still amount to a criminal offence.'
...
The association also points out that disclosing sensitive medical data may breach 2018 data protection legislation but would not be a criminal offence, but it would be under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3405116-The-Law-Society-Gazette-Gender-Recognition-Act-could-criminalise-innocent-staff

Doctor, did you write and complain? I made those points too and the editor basically said it wasn’t his job to provide balanced workplace guidance!!

we eventually agreed with her that if the patient wanted a natal woman she wouldn't insist

WHY did she want to do mammograms? I hate to even ask the question, because the first answer that jumps out is both unPC and very upsetting to think about - but really, why though?

And how horrible that “she wouldn’t insist” was the eventual COMPROMISE position. She considered “insisting” on examining the breasts of a woman who had said she did not want it as an option that was actually on the table? That’s appalling.

I had a response from Robert

Thanks for your email, and for reaching out over the article.

The intention with this particular feature wasn't to explore the entirety of the issue regarding transgender inclusion in the workplace – it was billed as looking specifically at the support transgender individuals need from their employers. There was not the space to explore the broader debate around GRC, which I understand is a separate issue which concerns many individuals.

At the same time, however, my discussions with employment lawyers and academics – who I did engage for this article – suggested they did not believe that in reality, certification would provide practical problems in the workplace, and indeed the link I added to the online version was intended to back up this point. I am not attempting to downplay the potential importance of this matter outside of work but I am not convinced that inside work it is as significant as the exclusion and discrimination faced by transgender individuals.

I absolutely appreciate that people who raise concerns can face a significant backlash, and indeed both sides of this debate can become very quickly personalised. I would like to find a way for someone to explore the alternative viewpoint on this, perhaps through a blog of some kind provided it is written in a considered and inclusive way. If you feel you, or someone else you know, is able to do that from an HR perspective, I would be happy to discuss that further

theoretically

Posters with 'Auntie' in their name always seem to be much nicer and more inclusive than the rest of us.

I haven't hermione, but I will this week. Seeing the replies people have already received is really helpful!

He’s a self satisfied twat. The magazine is supposed to help HR people in their profession, it’s not his personal mouthpiece to address whatever unfairness he perceives in society.

I’m tempted to write to Peter Cheese, but by all accounts he’s completely ineffectual.