Fully outed myself as GC at woke workplace

[McDuffy]

It might be stupid in this job climate but I'm reasonably senior and I've just commented on someone's intranet post on why they've put pronouns in their bio and why it's a nice thing to do with a (softened, for me) counter argument (three, actually).
I'm feeling a bit trembly but courage calls to courage. I don't add much original thought here but I learn so much (though I'm good for a Times share token ) so thanks for making me feel I'm not alone.

I just won’t have them in my company

Not a fan of cognitive diversity then?

Among the many other facets of employment and corporate culture you seem a bit hazy on, there’s some pretty interesting evidence on how badly teams perform when they’re made up entirely of people who think the same way that you also seem unaware of. Good leaders want mixed teams, not clones who are afraid to voice their opinions.

As with all this stuff, my first question is “does it help?”. If I put my pronouns in my email, when I have a name only given to girls in this or any other culture, and babes in arms can tell I’m a woman, who does that actually help? As PPs have pointed out, it’s as likely to harm a trans person as it is to help them.

If I’m asked to use them, I will decline on the basis of already being outnumbered by men in my workplace by four to one, and not wishing to draw further attention that that fact.

(I can understand why you don't want to.)

The fact you make that comment about it being different strikes me as someone who knows little about corporate structures or employment law.

It appears to me that Redtrees knows fuck all about fuck all! His/her/their/its attitude towards women is appalling!

Sorry I'm late to the party, but I know @FantaOra IRL and she is not a troll, and does have knowledge and experience in these issues.

@RedtreesRedtrees

There’s always the same argument that we should tolerate all viewpoints. But I doubt you’d want to work with, for example, a racist. Even if their actions were not sufficient to legally dismiss them you’d still expect your employer to try to do something. There are some viewpoints which are at odds with my company’s values (which are clearly set out and in the public domain) and I know that they are are at odds with my main investors. So I don’t want people with those views to work in the company and as far as is legally possible I will ensure that they don’t. It really is that simple. I appreciate that you believe that GC is an acceptable position to hold, but on that we will have to disagree.

Why is recognising that sex is a real thing that exists, that women are oppressed on the basis of it, and that women accordingly need some provision based on their sex, an unacceptable opinion? You do realise that sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, yes?

I think gender expression should be up to the individual. I absolutely support laws that prevent harm or abuse or discrimination based on gender expression. It's just another form of misogyny and/or homophobia. That doesn't mean you have to believe that humans can literally change sex - that their gender expression is their sex. That is, bluntly, bonkers. Sex is a biological fact with real-life implications. Declaration alone can't change a person's sex. And gender is a social construct, largely used through history as a tool to keep women in their place. You can encourage freedom in gender expression, while also recognising that sex remains a key fact, especially for women.

That's all being gender critical is. Will there be some transphobes amongst GC women? Sure. There will also be some misogynists amongst gay men. It doesn't make most gay men, let alone all, misogynist, and it doesn't make gender critical perspectives inherently transphobic, either.

I would also point out that many trans activists (as distinct from trans people) are horribly misogynist. Do you regard that as unacceptable, and would you seek to have people with those views disciplined, too?

It's perfectly legitimate for women to point out that we have interests and indeed rights based on biology. To find that hateful is to deny the impact of biology on women's lives, which is arguably contra the Equality Act.

My company is currently asking people to voluntarily disclose their ethnicity to HR at the moment. This is so that they can attempt to improve racial diversity, with the first step being measuring where we are now.

Less than 60% of people have done so. Are the 40+% who have declined to do so racist? Should they be disciplined?

McDuffy

I think redtrees' posts have really helped, though possibly not how they intended.

Because of them I've now got at least three more watertight reasons why it's a bad idea to introduce mandated pronouns if anyone challenges me (or asks discreetly!) and I feel reassured by the PPs posting who know more about legal scenarios and structures than me smile so thanks all.

What you mean OP is that you found some additional justifications to support your bigotry and have discovered that the law provides a huge amount of protection for you . I guess you’re realising that it isn’t the GC brigade who need protection or have much to fear.

Nicelegs, oh sorry I thought there were some differences between a limited company and a partnership

have discovered that the law provides a huge amount of protection for you

now you’re being really silly. Glad I don’t (imaginary) work for you with that attitude to equality law and employment rights.

I appreciate that you believe that GC is an acceptable position to hold, but on that we will have to disagree.

How would it not be? Any one idea that you are particularly offended by? That women have rights to organise politically as an oppressed sex class, maybe? Or that female health issues are important? Or is it just that forcing people to mouth sexist words that they don't believe to pretend that they think men are women is totes inclusive and you don't see why anyone wouldn't?

Do you work at the Guardian Redtrees

I guess you’re realising that it isn’t the GC brigade who need protection or have much to fear.

LOL

If an employer dismisses someone who objects to a policy on the express basis that it has a particularly adverse effect on disabled people (ie the policy is discriminatory) then you’re looking at a discrimination claim founded on disability. (It doesn’t matter that the OP herself is not disabled).

Am I right in thinking that disability discrimination is an unlimited liability at an employment tribunal, ie the sky’s the limit in a payout? It would be most unwise to push through measures that indirectly discriminate against your disabled employees.

I don’t want people with those views to work in the company and as far as is legally possible I will ensure that they don’t

What views, redtrees? How do you go about vetting for views?

If having sympathy and supporting a group of people who are routinely discriminated against is considered bigotry, that rather shows that particular group still needs specific targeted support

I don't have an opinion about anything at work. I'm paid to do a job of work and not to have opinions and that's how it should be otherwise it soon becomes a free for all.
If I have no opinions I can then ask other people to please keep theirs to themselves as it's work and not a debating forum if they start going on about trans/politics/religion etc.

Nicelegs, oh sorry I thought there were some differences between a limited company and a partnership

Yeah there are, but but nothing that has a bearing on gender critical feminism.

You're really no friend to women

Too scared to. Embarrassed at my cowardice.

As a BAME woman I'd find it really fucken offensive if my employer thought GC views were comparable to racism. I can't identify out of my oppression.

It’s unacceptable to believe that women = adult human female & that gender is a social construct that has always had a damaging effect on women as a class?

Right....

Why is recognising that sex is a real thing that exists, that women are oppressed on the basis of it, and that women accordingly need some provision based on their sex, an unacceptable opinion? You do realise that sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, yes?

I think gender expression should be up to the individual. I absolutely support laws that prevent harm or abuse or discrimination based on gender expression. It's just another form of misogyny and/or homophobia. That doesn't mean you have to believe that humans can literally change sex - that their gender expression is their sex. That is, bluntly, bonkers. Sex is a biological fact with real-life implications. Declaration alone can't change a person's sex. And gender is a social construct, largely used through history as a tool to keep women in their place. You can encourage freedom in gender expression, while also recognising that sex remains a key fact, especially for women.

Wonderfully put. Co-signed.

Ah yes, The Guardian: the perfect solution to the toilet roll crisis at the start of lockdown!

Concrete examples of why distinguishing sex and gender in my workplace would matter.

1. STEM employer. Women are under-represented. This is probably due largely to the "leaky pipeline" (women are less likely to do A level sciences, less likely still to do undergrad work, drop off again at PhD level - mostly due to society's expectations). We monitor this. Your typical MTF transgender person transitions after they have gone through school, undergrad, PhD, postdoc. They have gone through all these career defining stages with male privilege as a following wind. If we include them in the stats, we distort the stats. Because the barriers to women's inclusion in STEM typically occur early career when the MTF person was still presenting as a man. I don't doubt going through school as transgender is horrendous, but one thing such a person doesn't get is the constant barrage of "wouldn't you be better off doing (caring profession/arts subject/social sciences/communication rather than research/teaching/accountancy)?"

2. We have (or had prior to covid) a workplace gym, with open plan changing rooms and curtained shower cubicles. We also have a number of Muslim women employees (incidentally the "leaky pipeline" phenomenon is an order of magnitude worse for ethnic minorities than it is for women, so you certainly don't want to hit, say, Muslim women with a double whammy of discrimination). Are they suppose to stop cycling to work, or using the gym facilities, because someone with a penis decides they identify as a woman and can thus enter single sex accommodation? Am I, as a woman who uses such facilities, legitimately allowed to point out that current UK legislation (The Equalities Act) specifically allows changing rooms to be single sex rather than single gender?

I think Redtree's position is a pile of virtue signalling nonsense: they haven't thought at all about real-world consequences, nor do they have any understanding of actual UK law. If they tried to sack a female employee for raising issues about shared changing rooms, or about collecting stats properly, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on and would lose the resulting employment tribunal.

redtrees what is it about women wanting sex-based protections that you disagree with?
You don't think women are discriminated against because of their sex?
You don't think women are vulnerable because of their sex, or need protection and support?
You don't think that gender stereotyping is harmful to women in the workplace and in their careers in general?
I think that kinda sums up I we need to keep on fighting, as people like you are undermining my rights and safety and making me feel unsafe and concerned for future prospects of myself and other women.

“Good leaders want mixed teams, not clones who are afraid to voice their opinions.”

I heartily agree, but if you think it’s relevant to GC then you’ve missed the point.