Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Joseph Rowntree Foundation

35 replies

catgirl1976 · 28/05/2019 18:52

Went to apply for a role with Joseph Rowntree.

I was having a look on the careers page and noticed they were a Stonewall Top 100 employer.

Scrolled down a bit further to see them proudly claiming that they welcome applicants regardless of:

age
gender identity
disability
marriage or civil partnership
pregnancy or maternity
religion or belief
race
sexual orientation
transgender status
social economic background

No mention of sex. And some interesting variations from the Equality Act's list of protected characteristics.

Should I complain? And to whom? Is there anyone on MN / Twitter who could highlight this? I am SO annoyed that the characteristic of sex has been thrown out of the window.

Link to the careers page here

www.jrht.org.uk/about-us/careers

OP posts:
catgirl1976 · 29/05/2019 08:25

Maid of Kent, imagine if they had listed all the characteristics they have listed but they left out “race”. Wouldn’t you be left wondering if the exclusion of this meant they didn’t welcome candidates from diverse racial backgrounds? Why else exclude it when everything else is listed?

Also “pregnancy and maternity” is a protected characteristic whereas “pregnancy and parenthood” is not. They have listed all bar two of the protected characteristics from the EA and added in some extra ones.

OP posts:
ArcheryAnnie · 29/05/2019 08:33

MaidofKent I get that you don't agree with most responses on this thread, but how do you think your new employers would react if you did point out that they have omitted a protected characteristic from their list? Would they be receptive and fix it? Or would you get into trouble? Because I think their reaction would show whether they are an organisation truly committed to rooting out inequality or not, whether they are prepared to consider whether they may have got something wrong.

TBF I think they are just another example of a bunch of well-meaning but ultimately clueless people trying to be woke. The fact that it's the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, who are supposed to have a level of expertise on the causes of structural inequality, is pretty depressing, though.

sackrifice · 29/05/2019 08:43

Are they? Where does it explicitly say "we are not inclusive of women"?

They have made a conscious decision to remove 'sex' as a protected characteristic.

sackrifice · 31/05/2019 18:09

Did you get a response yet?

sackrifice · 07/06/2019 17:45

I just got mine - I had to ask 3 times and then asked who I had to escalate it to as it had been over a week since my original email.

Good Afternoon

Thank you for your email raising concerns about our advert. I have been provided with some feedback from our Head of Diversity and Inclusion.

I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that we take gender equality very seriously.

Within JRF/JRHT, we have a very good track record of employing and promoting women. Indeed, 77% of our staff are women. 8 out of 16 directors (50%) are women and 33 out of 55 of our senior managers (60%) are women.

Our advert clearly states that everyone is welcome to apply irrespective of the categories mentioned, which are not meant to match word for word those in the Equality Act 2010. We have no intention of excluding either women or men on the basis of the ‘sex’ category they were assigned at birth. Rather, we recognise the limitation of the ‘sex’ category as it’s not inclusive of those people who do not fit neatly into the M/F categories.

We have chosen to use the term ‘gender identity’ in order to be more inclusive of people who define themselves as male, female, non-binary and others who do not fit into the ‘sex’ categories of M/F assigned at birth. Please see the UK government definitions of ‘Sex’ and ‘Gender’ outlined below.

I hope that this reassures you that our intention is to be inclusive and that we have no intent of excluding women from applying for these roles. We would also like to confirm that we have now included the category of sex to avoid misinterpretation in the future.

Anne Mwangi

Head of Diversity and Inclusion

Definitions
The UK government defines sex as:
referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions. Generally male or female and something that is assigned at birth.

The UK government defines gender as:
a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself and so the gender category someone identifies with may not match the sex they were assigned at birth.
Where an individual may see themselves as a man, a woman, as having no gender, or as having a non-binary gender – where people identify as somewhere on a spectrum between man and woman.

GassyAss · 07/06/2019 18:16

Assigned at birth is the biggest crock of word shit. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just virtue signalling.

JackyHolyoake · 07/06/2019 18:30

What is the source of the so-called government definitions of sex and gender. It certainly is not any current UK law.

UK law defines sex as: "a congruence of chromosomes, gonads and genitals".

Gender is undefined in the text of any current UK law [ie: it has no legal definition]; as are "transgender", "gender identity", "gender expression". These terms have zero legal meaning in the text of any current law. The only term that is currently used in the text of any UK law is "transsexual"[ referred to in the GRA 2004 and Equality Act 2010].

sackrifice · 07/06/2019 18:32

I've responded anyway, and just asked for the source of those definitions. Will post them on here if I ever get them.

JackyHolyoake · 07/06/2019 18:35

Thanks, sackrifice. I look forward to learning from where those definitions arose. Smile

drum123 · 07/06/2019 18:42

At least they're going to add the category of sex. That's a good result.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page