I've just come out of a work event - LGBT terminology and pronouns... and lesbian erasure

[W0nderW0man]

Earlier today I attended a panel discussion put on by my company to discuss LGBT terminology and pronouns. I know that I'd come away raging from the wokeness, but I came away raging!

There were reps from other woke organisations to talk about how they do things, and one of them brought along awareness guides to help us deal with/relate to to members of the community. There was a 'Gay Awareness Guide'. a 'Bisexual Awareness Guide' and a 'Transgender Awareness Guide'. Lesbians apparently do not deserve a guide.

One organisation had a very vocal rep, who was so proud of their % of NB and trans in the workforce and suggested that every workplace should have targets for employing NB/Trans people! Do we get extra points for employing people who are trans and gay and from an ethnic minority?

The same rep also flippantly talked about their organisation's Twitter being trolled over the weekend after someone 'accidentally' posted a meme saying 'Cher hates TERFS'. It was those pesky lesbians that don't believe TWAW getting all het up apparently.

That was pretty much the first and last time that lesbians were mentioned.

We had the pleasure of a transwoman transplaining to us how important pronouns are whilst waving her hand around in an attempt to look more feminine.

I'm surprised that my eyeballs didn't fall out, they were rolling so much. The only positive moment was in the lift as we were leaving, a group of us stood in stunned silence until I asked if anyone else was bothered by the lesbian erasure and I could see the GC glint in several eyes! We may not all feel able to speak up, but it is gratifying to see that more and more people are peaking.

“ Why can't people just get on with their jobs, who cares whether or not your straight/gay/no or anything else.”

This.

Because that just so boooooooring (channel Kevin the teenager) and doesn't shock the grandparents/startle the vicar/scare the horses.

Lesbians are included in 'Gay'.

Fire I don’t think people screaming “get the L out” at Pride agree with you.

I would also add that the insult T*RF is misogynistic and almost always levelled at women - you don't hear people calling men that even when they're making exactly the same comments about the sexism that often occurs in trans activism.

If they referred to 'cis' women, you might also want to challenge them on that if you find it offensive - the point feels a bit more niche than the T word, but there's a growing voice of objection about it and there was an article in the law gazette the other day about trans guidance for judges being offensive because it uses 'cis' (can't link from my phone but there's another MN thread on it somewhere).

My main objection to cis would be that no-one should be assuming my gender (or whether I feel I have one that I identify with). Obviously, referring to 'cis privilege' is also a fantastic way to shut down debate and silence the voices as of non-trans people, although I wouldn't be saying that to my woke employer!

I would also add that the insult T*RF is misogynistic and almost always levelled at women

This insult has been deliberately crafted to dismiss women as radical and irrelevant. Like so much of the language used by trans lobbyists, that is a deceptive inversion of reality. The radicals are those who think men can transform into women and vice versa and that society should be remodelled to accommodate this. The radicals think drag queens should be in primary schools. The radicals think people should be sacked for a belief in biological sex. The radicals believe in a sinister, Orwellian control of language and compelled speech. Those who object to this agenda are not radicals. They are Conservatives, left wing feminists and people who believe in Enlightenment values, freedom of speech and debate. It is becoming harder to shut us down by using mendacious language.

I very much doubt any organisation would advertise a job only in a BME magazine unless it was a role that required someone from a specific ethnic group and came under special exemptions in the equality act.

I also think it is a dangerous myth that organisations are employing under qualified ethnic minorities just to fill quotas. Organisations are trying to make sure they have a wider field of candidates to choose from so try to advertise in a wider range of places. There will always be individual instances but generally line managers tend not to want to overlook candidates they think they can do a job for one they think they can't just to fill 'quotas' as they have to deal with the fall out.

Nappy “ very much doubt any organisation would advertise a job only in a BME magazine unless it was a role that required someone from a specific ethnic group and came under special exemptions in the equality act. ”

That’s what they told me. It’s not a role where race would have any relevance.

If it makes a difference, it was about 8 years ago.

I do get the impression you are talking about large organisations though.

I also think it is a dangerous myth that organisations are employing under qualified ethnic minorities just to fill quotas.

Nope - I was once encouraged by HR to employ someone I wasn't confident in. They not only turned out to be a very tricky person to manage (rude to my boss, refused to stay behind, told senior team members that he didn't like what they'd asked so would do things his way, kept trying to sell his wife's diet pills at work...). He didn't have the skills for the job - and didn't want to learn either.

I've blatantly heard people say "I really want a black woman for this job".

I've also heard, in a female dominated organisation, "we've got to adjust the balance or we'll get in trouble". Of course organisations are struggling with this kind of thing.

If you look across the labour market you see that ethnic minorities are often (not always) over qualified for the jobs they do. The idea that they are just being nodded in to fill quotas is laughable. The under qualified candidates I see hired tend to be those who are thought to 'fit in' so the recruitment panel see all sorts of things in them that aren't there on paper.

Nappy, if you look across the labour market, aren't an awful lot of people overqualified for the job they do?

I am not trying to change your mind Autumn. I think we should let this thread get back to its original topic.

Nappy, if you look across the labour market, aren't an awful lot of people overqualified for the job they do?

Precisely. Maybe that has something to do with the massive expansion of tertiary education which has happened during the last two decades.

How did it go, OP?