Workplace definition of sex/gender - advice?

[whoknowswhyanyonedoesanything]

Hi all. I'm looking for a bit of advice.

At my organisation, information about a recent innovation/scheme described as for women/females and intended to be of specific benefit to them (think of issues that impact on women in the workplace in an institutionalised sexism way) finished by also stating it was 'inclusive' in its definition of women to include trans women and non-binary.

I think they have their definitions wrong. I think it defeats the purpose of the original intention of the scheme. I feel uncomfortable about it and want to say something. But is this a 'putting my head above the parapet' situation? I feel a bit sick at the prospect of speaking up tbh. Should I? And how should I - what should I say? Or am I on the wrong track?

Sorry don't want to go into too much detail and have name changed (actually registered again because forgot password, such a long time lurker) for this.

Many thanks for any advice if you can with this limited info!

I'd be saying-
but surely it's transMEN we need to include in this scheme, they are the ones likely to have suffered XYZ

So true, thanks. That's what I mean I suppose - it's like all meaning is taken out of the (good) intention.

They have to go by the legal definition. So they mean sex. If they want to include trans people, they must have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Otherwise it isn't for women and they can't claim it is.

It is scary sticking your neck out in a scenario like this. I wonder if it's worth it for you. It might depend on your organisation. Where I work I wouldn't dare. Maybe cowardly but I like my job.

Would the scheme being inclusive of transwomen take away some of the benefits for females? For example a limited number of places in the scheme or something like top female employee of the month a la Pips Bunce.
If so it seems reasonable to point the unfairness if it. But it may go down badly or seen as "not being kind"

How this can harm? Sorry I don't understand your concern..

Thanks for your responses,

@Thelnebriati - thanks - I think they don't know if they mean sex or gender and suspect they haven't thought about GRC

@MajesticWhine - there might be limits on places yes, not as extreme as a single prize winner but (to me) implications for the point of it in the first place

A couple years back our new 'women's group' that was being formed turned into a gender equality group when it launched and the first meeting with a guest speaker was a shitshow of centering men.

I'd give it a wide berth probably. You won't win any friends.

Violetta do you think non binary males who present as male will have experienced institutional sexism in the workplace?

You see they really don't.

But at the inaugural gender equality group at my old work, the second question was, aren't white straight men being discriminated against now...

@NiceGerbil thanks for the advice/background

@NiceGerbil I meant if a transwoman has issues she wants to discuss why not include her? Isn't that what we are talking about? Anyway I think the % of non binary people at work is quite small to make such a big deal out of this. Let them join whatever group they want, they are struggling to fit already don't need to make them feel un-included in my opinion.

I meant if a transwoman has issues she wants to discuss why not include her?

Because then it wouldn’t be a woman’s group.

Women will have specific woman based issues that TW by definition do not share.

TW will have separate issues based on being a TW that women do not share.

TW should be free to express their issues. I have no idea why this seemingly can only be through a women’s group.

As usual - message to women - your job is to be kind.

Is one way of doing/saying something to ask questions, rather than make statements?

Sometimes, asking people questions that force them to realise error or contradiction can be very effective.

So bone up on the Equalities Act, and suggest that if they are undertaking affirmative action because sex then it is legal to focus only on women (sex), and such actions can - as I understand the exclusions specfically allowed for in the EA - legally exclude even transwomen with a GRC.

Suggest that it might be appropriate to have a separate set of actions for transwomen as "Surely, the discrimination issues they face are often quite different, aren't they?"

Win-win. Supporting & centring women, and showing proper concern for transwomen.

@CatandtheFiddle that's very helpful and a good way of looking at it thank you.

I don't want to upset, but I want proper focus on the reason for taking an action in the first place (which I presume in this case is awareness of structural inequalities that they want to help address - but which I would say have specifically impacted on women over years from childhood to workplace, because they are women. Other groups of people face other, specific prejudices and inequalities of course)

But the thing is Violetta

If you follow the stonewall definitions, most people are trans (GNC to some extent)

The structural inequality impacting females (cunty) is totally different to issues that trans women may have. The conscious/ subconscious biases in the workplace do not come from exactly the same place.

Lots of groups at work face bias. I agree that transpeople may well often have issues. I would say, start a trans group. Or raise them at LGBT+ group and if there isn't one, start one.

Trans people who might experience sexism are trans men (who don't 'pass' I hate that word) and non binary females.

None of this makes sense to me.

In the case that a transwoman does 'pass' and colleagues all think they were born female and nothing says otherwise then they can rock up to the group no probs can't they. Because in their work, everyone thinks they're female.

So non binary woke beardy man rocks up at the women's group. Woke beardy man enjoys the sound of his own voice and is super progressive so knows best about everything.

there are men like this everywhere. We have all met them, I'm sure.

How do you think that impacts the dynamic of the group?

Who may well want to discuss things like menstruation, pregnancy, menopause.

A lot of covert eye contact, eye rolling, and women not speaking is the answer.

I've been thinking about this a bit recently. I'm definitely GNC. I'm also GC. SO I'd ask them, if they are not going to use sex, i.e. chromosomes, to define what a woman or a man is, how they intend to define it. Any other way is literally just "anyone who feels they are" sexist bullshit. It's all regressive notions of valuing someone's worth by their physical appearance, ability to provide financially (& potentially be ridiculed for doing so or not, depending on their sex & relationship status), & who shoulders the greatest burden of caring & domestic responsibilities.

The thing that no one wants to admit is that everyone but everyone knows what male and female are, and treats them accordingly.

Even the people who claim to be 100% on board.

What about intersex? Have you met a non binary bearded man who wants to join a female group to chat about menstruation? I think it's all blown out of proportion. The company is trying to follow modern inclusive policies that haven't yet hurt anybody.

For example I know a trasman born xx, he hasn't had menstruation in years since starting hormone replacement therapy, looks like a man, why would he want to join female XX group to talk about pregnancy? Chances are he will be the only transman in the company, why not treat him as a man and vice versa? Plus people who don't know he was born a woman would normally not even suspect. Would you want Aydiab Dowling or Buck Angel be included just because technically they are xx? I think the drama of it all in all in our imagination.

There are several (I can think of at least 4 without trying) high profile TW where I work. All are 50+ and all have had successful careers at a level they wouldn't have reached had they actually been women when they left school. It would be highly inappropriate for any of them to enter a scheme designed to boost women.

Intersex people or people with disorders of sexual developments (DSD) are not a mysterious ‘third’ sex, they are still either Male or female. They have also asked repeatedly not to be dragged into trans issues as some kind of gotcha

I assume membership of said woman’s group is not compulsory and therefore if a TM does not wish to go they don’t have to

TW are TW and their issues are completely different. They are socialised as Male which means the chances of them sitting down and listening to women’s issues are slim to bugger all.

The two groups face very different issues and challenges and it is not beneficial to either group to conflate them.

Women are discriminated against and harassed because of their sex. Because they are female and have female bodies.

Transwomen are discriminated against and harassed because of their trans status.

Completely different issues, requiring different initiatives and actions to address them.

@Viletta

For example I know a trasman born xx, he hasn't had menstruation in years since starting hormone replacement therapy, looks like a man, why would he want to join female XX group to talk about pregnancy? Chances are he will be the only transman in the company, why not treat him as a man and vice versa? Plus people who don't know he was born a woman would normally not even suspect. Would you want Aydiab Dowling or Buck Angel be included just because technically they are xx? I think the drama of it all in all in our imagination.

Yes, but surely trans men who haven't had surgery, and/or are still treated by sexist workplaces as having the potential to get pregnant/ go through menopause etc are just as valid and deserve protection?

Or do you think only people who have physically altered themselves are trans?

This is why it needs to be clear. No-one really knows what each other means by these terms.

Have you met a non binary bearded man who wants to join a female group to chat about menstruation?

This is such a strange comment I find it hard to believe that anyone who is a woman in the workplace would imagine that this is what women's groups are for.
But to indulge the odd premise: working groups might discuss hiring policies, maternity policies, or cost-cutting measures, or changes to facilities, just as examples. The impact of which might disproportionately affect women.

Can you see why male people may wish to continue to influence these?

OP you could ask if the group is inclusive enough to include males who identify as men, and if not, why they have chosen to exclude only that group?