My employer has invited Susie Green for a transgender inclusion event

[cornflakegirl]

We have a new Head of Diversity. He has invited Susie Green for a panel event at my office. The new "transitioning at work" policy will also be launched the same day. We're also partnering with Stonewall, so I can imagine what the policy is likely to say.

I'm willing to stand up as GC at work, but I also need to keep my job, so need to do it calmly and respectfully. Any advice on how to approach this?

4. Ask what transgender encompases. Someone told you it included cross-dressers as well as those with dysphoria. Is that true?

I like this suggestion. According to Stonewall, the trans umbrella embraces people who have gone down the surgical path, or intend to do so, people who won't do this and have no intention to do so but consider themselves to have a transgender identity, and cross-dressers. Does she agree with these different groups being within the trans umbrella?

And then a follow-up question: it's commonly said in the community that people can be transgender without needing to have gender dysphoria. Does she agree with that?

However, these are pointed questions and I would expect that they could be very out of step with the vibe of the event and you could look like you were making it personal.

The Allsorts School Guidance toolkit which is promoted by Mermaids has been identified as contravening some legislation and good practice:

analysed here by Claire Graham:

Our business is nothing to do with kids. Pretty sure the SG thing is just virtue signalling.

senua and RiverTam - I think I agree with you - easier to get stuff changed if they don't have to publicly backtrack. I don't like challenging stuff that I haven't seen - don't want to come across as rude and assuming that he hasn't done his job properly. But I think a factual email setting out Tam's points could be the way forward.

I agree you need to keep SG's personal situation right out of it.

I'd be homing in on the difference between sex and gender, the fact that sex is a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act and gender isn't (although gender reassignment is) and practical things like respecting everybody's sensitivities when it comes to introducing mixed sex toilets, for example. Mention strict religious requirements for men and women to have separate toilets and changing rooms, for example. If the organisation is to be truly inclusive, it needs to balance up competing rights and do its best to include everyone in the best way for each group - otherwise they could unintentionally end up excluding some groups.

If you felt up to it you could also try to talk about how female socialisation can mean that women are often unlikely to speak frankly and forthrightly about how they really feel when asked to budge up and make room for someone else - they can feel they must be kind and caring to a vulnerable group, so their own needs and preferences will have to be sidelined. Women who have been abused and who need male-free space are particularly unlikely to speak up and explain why, for obvious reasons.

You could also point out that most women are particularly keen on privacy when dealing with periods and that most men would also probably not want to make women feel uncomfortable about this kind of thing. (Let's assume the best about your male colleagues.)

The recent opinion poll results might be useful as back up. Helen Staniland published the results on Twitter and there's a thread here somewhere.

medium.com/@kathleenstock/womens-place-talk-full-text-house-of-lords-oct-10th-2018-b1f3d70c4559

A friend found this speech by Prof Kathleen Stock helpful when facing a similar dilemma about new policies in her work place. The speech outlines concerns about public bodies (including government) being advised by people with lived experience without inclusion of evidence or expert advice.

Friend just keeps saying that her workplace already has diversity and inclusion policies that should be used...

Make sure you know what the law is yourself.
The equality act itself is straightforward to read but obviously doesn't talk about how it will pan out in real life situations.
Unfortunately the EHRC guidance on equality law is long, confused and unclear, but it's the best thing there is.

In addition to asking questions on the day I think you should be raising concerns prior to the event, having conversations with colleagues prior to the event so that they can have thought through the issues rather than end up simply accepting what they are told.

I would simply make your employer aware that respected journalists such as Janice Turner, Andrew Gilligan and James Kirkup have been discussing the influence of lobby groups including Mermaids and the implications for policies and legislations which affect sex based as well as gender based rights.
That with regards Mermaids, whilst it provides support for families and children, it also has a history of conflict with the NHS specialist provider of support for children and young people and has been cited as problematic in a court case.

That it seems likely that more will discussed and your employer may wish to wait before taking a position which endorses a particular organisation and individual.

I'm guessing she'll give a very emotive speech about her own experiences (with perhaps a bit of reference to her child's...) in order to establish the 'we must be kind because otherwise people kill themselves' narrative. As a result, questions might not even be allowed and any sort of 'challenging' ones might be given short shrift by whoever is running the event.

I'm with those who think you need to challenge how this policy was written - and who was (and was not) consulted on it - before this event.

see also current position from medical clinicians published in BMJ:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3410257-BMJ-article-We-need-research-to-explore-the-interplays-between-gender-identity-mental-health-and-neurodevelopmental-problems-sexual-orientation-autogynephilia-and-unpalatable-gender-roles

If you've got the confidence, you could ask what provision is made for women who believe it's discriminatory and sexist to believe that women and men have different kinds of brains. You could ask them to confirm that they believe men and women have different kinds of brains, because you are waiting for evidence that this is the case. And say that women who don't wish to submit to the belief that they have different kinds of brains should have provision made for them to opt out of promulgating this belief.

Also if they say the Equality Act includes people with a GRC in the sex category, be ready with the response that this is not the case, because self ID was not being considered by government in the preparations for the GRA 2004 and is a relatively new legal concept. There is no degi ition in law of sex as biological because it was inconceivable that sex could mean anything other than biological. (which it was, and for most people still is)

I’d be tempted to question what someone from a parenting support charity, has to do with advising adults who want to transition their gender presentation at work?

It seems highly patronising to assume that someone who is a professional parent of a trans child running a parenting support charity has any expertise at all to speak for, or even to speak about, adults who plan to transition at work? Which is what this event is about.

Susie Green clearly isn’t trans herself? You need an adult transitioned working person on the panel. Plus a gender critical legal expert who can advise on the boundaries of accommodation in the workplace.

You could suggest that Pips Bunce or some other ‘out at work’ adult trans person comes to speak.

Your colleagues can then concentrate on the issues raised by such a speaker.

You could then further suggest that if your Head of Diversity wants a series of parenting experts to come in and present I staff.. that working parents in the organisation can be invited to suggest topics and speakers that they would like to discuss/hear from. Mermaids then may or may not be on such a list.

I would naively ask if its true that men who are sexually aroused by dressing as women are included in the definition of transgender. Act as if this couldn't possibly be true, no matter what it says in stonewall literature.

I think it's vitally important to get this fact in the public eye. People still think that trans women are all harmless, genuinely dysphoric men, and understandably feel sympathetic and unthreatened by them.

The more women (and men) understand that Stonewall et Al don't distinguish between transsexuals and men who get sexual kicks from claiming to be women, the faster this nightmare will be over.

I emailed. He phoned me. Didn't go well. On the positive side, it started a conversation.

The policy will say that people can use the toilets of their preferred gender. He asked how I would propose instead. I said I didn't know, but I'd like to be able to come up with a suggestion. (I know it's not the job of women to provide solutions but...)

My current thought is proposing that a set of men's toilets in each location should be designated gender neutral. Any better ideas?

That's a brilliant idea. We'll done. Basically the solution is turning men's into mixed sex toilets.

Can you email affirming you verbal suggestion, and saying this would also maintain female spaces for those women who for religious reasons cannot share spaces will make bodied people.

Note how it's up to the women to come up with a solution for a male problem.

With male-bodied

gender is not a protected characteristic, so he's on a slippery slope designating toilets by gender not sex. He also needs to think about women of faith who will simply not be able to use their preferred (and legally correct and protected) toilet at all.

That, from the start, suggests he hasn't a clue about the Equality Act.

It's not your job to provide solutions, but it is his job to adhere to the law.

And can I suggest that you always use sex when you mean sex (so unisex, not gender neutral) as it keeps things absolutely clear.

that also suggests that he hasn't consulted with any women at all.

If you handle this well, you can push back on pretty much everything as he's almost certainly not acting lawfully.

I'd be most concerned about partnering with Stonewall.

Questions I'd ask:

• have you asked female employees if they are happy to partner with an organisation campaigning to end the single sex exemption of the Equalities Act (ie, do away with any female only spaces)?

• have you seen the petition from a group of concerned LGBT people to Stonewall pointing out the misogyny and homophobia of their position?

Stonewall used to be a nice option for diversity. As we say in my industry "no one loses their job for buying IBM". Stonewall was the equivalent. It's not any more. It's now toxic in a way that some people haven't understood yet.

I said I didn't know, but I'd like to be able to come up with a suggestion....
... so let's put it out to consultation so we can check intersectionality across the whole workplace.
I'd like to see him diversify himself out of that little hole he's dug for himself.

And can I suggest that you always use sex when you mean sex (so unisex, not gender neutral) as it keeps things absolutely clear.

Mixed sex is the clearest and most accurate description.

I’d be tempted to question what someone from a parenting support charity, has to do with advising adults who want to transition their gender presentation at work?

It looks like it's the human shield approach. Go along with what we say or else you're being transphobic towards the most vulnerable people in society today. The "don't be a colossal meanie" argument.

Would the fuck most of you ask anything like these questions

Don't be so sure