dealing with wokie BS around gender at work

[helpmedealwiththisBS]

Hi. Been on this board for a while but nc as I've actually pointed a few colleagues here to read around this issue.

So the (largely) millennial wokies at my work want an inclusion policy and they're already talking about censoring language (and, one presumes, thought). I wont go into details as it will be outing, but it's the same old, same old.

I'm going to try and talk some sense into them. But I'm knackered trying to juggle home school and my day job so I could really do with some help. Maybe there is a thread here already on this. I know most of the arguments that come up before will be the same everywhere, and there's an epidemic of this BS right now. If the thread already exists, please someone direct me to it. If it doesnt, or if we could do with a new one, may be this could do with it.

I'm thinking through the conversations I will have to have. Some are easier to have than others. I think I'm going to be on relatively safe ground asserting that, you know: we should be able to assert that biological sex exists. Hurray for freedom of speech!

Where I think I will have more trouble is in defending womens sex based rights. It always comes to toilets, and gets trivialised. But even when we talk about shelters and prisons, if I try to explain how women have been subjected to centuries of violence and coercion on the basis of their sex (and reproductive capacity) I know I'm going to be hit with "but transwomen are vulnerable to male violence too". And "transwomen are the most persecuted people out there". So I fear anything that defends womens sex based rights on the basis of protecting them from male violence is going to be harder to argue. I guess because what we come down to there is that this is about balancing competing needs and rights, and that in order to protect the majority of women, we do need to create sex-based boundaries around certain spaces. If that excludes some vulnerable transwomen in the process, that is unfortunate, but it is not proportionate to throw women under a bus for the sake of protecting the very small number of transwomen who are vulnerable in the same way and who dont have a GRC (because I think a GRC means a transwoman must legally be treated as a woman, and so could not be legally excluded from a woman-only space/service. My point there being that there is already a provision in the law for trans women to gain access to women only services, provided they prove they are fully committed to living as a woman).

God I'm tired of this BS.
Any thoughts and help welcome. Thank you

Where I think I will have more trouble is in defending womens sex based rights. It always comes to toilets, and gets trivialised. But even when we talk about shelters and prisons, if I try to explain how women have been subjected to centuries of violence and coercion on the basis of their sex (and reproductive capacity) I know I'm going to be hit with "but transwomen are vulnerable to male violence too". And "transwomen are the most persecuted people out there". So I fear anything that defends womens sex based rights on the basis of protecting them from male violence is going to be harder to argue

I’d just say that lots of people are subject to male violence but the function of a female only toilet is not to provide a general shelter for anyone who might want an escape from male violence. It’s a place for people of the female sex only to give us safety, privacy and dignity.

It’s not for young men (who are one of the biggest group of vctims of male violence, it’s not for gay men, it’s not for men of particular groups that might be at greater risk of violence from other males.

TLDR: how many (non-trans) males are victims of male violence each year? Should all those men use our toilets too?

thank you @BreatheAndFocus. It's a really good point. THE point, possibly.

I suspect the response would be: well gay men (for eg) arent subjected to male violence due to their "gender expression" or perceived sex. They are victims due to their sexuality. My recollection is that the definition of trans is actually very vague and people cant decide if it's (also) an expression of sexuality. But anyway, I think I can cope with that argument. Thank you again!

The other point is that women are a target for 95% of men.

Men want women. The danger to women comes from men's desire to do things to them. And men are strong enough to do things to them.

Not many men actually will, but the risk is always there.

That's not really the same thing as a very small percentage of males having some sort of bigotted attitude to gender non-conformity which might lead to violence. Those sorts of attitudes are relatively rare, and only likely to flair up in extremis.

Whereas the sexual urges of the majority of men cause all sorts of lower level problems before getting anywhere near actual assault. So focussing solely on actual direct violent attacks is downplaying the problems women face. (I seem to recall some "MeToo" thing some decades ago discussing this - someone dig deep into the archives).

Hence the "safety, privacy and dignity" trio. Gay men and transwomen don't really suffer the same level of threat to privacy and dignity. 95% of males are not wanting to look up their outfits.

Tbh I wouldn't even try. They'll trot out the wheel of power, showing you how you as a straight and possibly white (double sin there) woman have more power than a trans woman. I've no idea what that changes, but it seems to be designed to induce some sort of guilt for being born. I have seen so much comedy woke BS. And when I challenge it, I'm met with so much fact free bollocks and aggression it just doesn't seem worth it. Like the one about how various Halloween costumes are inappropriate - the list included dressing as a slave (err, yes, always been inappropriate), and using the Mexican skull motifs, which is apparently inappropriate because it appropriated dia de Los muertos. The fact that literally is Halloween in Mexico seemed not to make any difference.

I think the best you can hope for is to point out that policies like pronouns can be a bit intrusive. As it might oblige people to share their gender identity when they don't wish to. Play them at their own stupid game...

Not sure if my previous post will be allowed as I forgot links to crowdfunders are forbidden and I was pointing out Ann Sinnott is challenging the EHRC guidance on this.

In short, no, trans people with a GRC can be excluded from single-sex spaces if it is 'objectively justified' and organisations can set policies around this, it doesn't have to be on a person-by-person basis.

Examples are here
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

Also there is a blog on Legal Feminist here covering this
legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/17/does-the-law-say-that-trans-women-are-women/

So legally this is fine. You may have to make the moral case though. Personally, I have always been fine about sharing loos with transwomen, but I recognize I don't have the right to consent on behalf of women with trauma or women from orthodox religions. Probably need people to think about who they might be pushing out of the inclusivity tent in order to pull in transwomen.

You may be interested in getting in touch with Helen Pluckrose's new organisation, Counterweight.
counterweightsupport.com/

Might be useful to remind them about all of the protected characteristics - including religion. Muslim women would be excluded from those spaces if men were allowed to use them. That's a larger demographic than either transwomen with a GRC or self-identified transwomen. There's an overview of sex-based exclusions on Fair Play for Women that might help. Good luck.

Dont try to convert anyone; just stick to the laws around equality and bullying in the workplace.
It is a breach of The Equality Act to try to get other people to break The Equality Act, and it is also a breach to create a hostile workplace.

Harassment
(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

111 Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions
(1)A person (A) must not instruct another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which contravenes Part 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 or section 108(1) or (2) or 112(1) (a basic contravention).
(2)A person (A) must not cause another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.
(3)A person (A) must not induce another (B) to do in relation to a third person (C) anything which is a basic contravention.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (3), inducement may be direct or indirect.
(5)Proceedings for a contravention of this section may be brought—
(a)by B, if B is subjected to a detriment as a result of A's conduct;
(b)by C, if C is subjected to a detriment as a result of A's conduct;
(c)by the Commission.
(6)For the purposes of subsection (5), it does not matter whether—
(a)the basic contravention occurs;
(b)any other proceedings are, or may be, brought in relation to A's conduct.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/111

Come at it from the angle of children, and the trend towards 'treating' gender non conforming, and many autistic, children, with puberty blockers, and so on......

Try to establish that is not just about "being free to be your "authentic self", but has implications that stretch to the very moment of birth.

Establish the difference between sex and gender, and that simply being gender non- conforming does not automatically make you the opposite sex, or "born in the wrong body". Point out how regressive that idea of gender is.

Point out how wide the trans umbrella is now. It includes many groups; many of whom do not suffer from debilitating dysphoria, and who have no intention to fully 'transition'.

What I might be able to add is moral support and tell you that I did approach my HR department with concerns over data collection and pronouns, and I would have discussed toilets if that changed, but we are all home working currently. I did work myself up over it in advance. But the response was gratitude and we will do what we can. There may be many people in your organisation who feel like you. But management need evidence that people are uncomfortable, otherwise the easiest route is to go along. Good luck OP.

thank you all so much for this. It's exactly what I was after

Regarding pronouns, why not ask them why they think 'Ms' was introduced, back in the day? It was so women could say "my personal life is none of your business". To demand people disclose the even more intimate detail of how they feel about their body and body parts does not strike me as progressive: if it is important to someone, then by all means let them do it on an individual basis, but to require it of all is intrusive. It's a workplace, not a dating website.

@IvyTwines well put, and I agree about the right not to say. My response would be to ask people refer to me by my name.

@helpmedealwiththisBS hope you have some success.

There's an article on the danger to women posed by mixed sex changing rooms:

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

The problem is if they stick to TWAW there is no solution to this.

You could remind them that the conviction rates of transwomen remain the same post-transition for sexual assault on women?

Spoke a while back to my daughter about this. She’s GC, but is at a very woke university. She said that though many of the students read about JK Rowling and believed the hype without ever questioning, when faced with, for example, the recent debate in Scotland about whether raped women should be allowed to request a female medic, they actually agreed that it should be based on sex.

So I suspect when you get down to the nitty gritty (demonstrated, for example, by the Staniland question) most actually agree with us more than they think. So I wouldn’t mention women’s oppression or male violence. Trans campaigners have done their work in painting trans vulnerability as being greater than any other group. Go for the more personalized approach. It’s the small things that sometimes switch on the lights about what we’re actually arguing about.

There are lots of issues in the workplace. 'Gender' pay gap would it be a true reflection if a man who got promoted etc then transitions he would pull the average down.
Non binary ( those who say they are neither male or female) people getting the right medical care in an emergency (think ectopic pregnancy), or if non binary (female) not bring exposed to chemicals etc. which is a risk to unborn foetus. How do you a risk assessment for a non binary person?
Sexual harassment: would this be recorded as male on female or female on female?
The Equality Act lists the protected characteristics they should be given equal treatment.
Of course make it clear you are all for inclusivity and fairness for everyone.
Definitely say what others said about not asking for pronouns in meetings, email etc as it is outing.

If at work it is most likely you would know the transwoman so the toilet issue may not be so important. I say this because the toilet issue is being used to say that adult human females are trying to stop people from peeing which is ridiculous. It is becoming a distraction and may not win you any votes.
Good luck it is hard work. I've been trying to get decent categories on surveys etc for sex and gender but have failed.

Vulnerable is such a subjective term too. We have trans identifying people that are billionaires, judges, police officers, etc. They can be 5ft 5 and 15 years old or 6ft 5 and 45 years old. They can be in schools in deprived areas or in FTSE 100 offices. They can present as they prefer (which may mean no changes!). They’re still male and we can’t discriminate on looks or circumstances- it’s one in all in.

As it becomes more prevalent it’s harder to see why the blanket term ‘vulnerable’ applies.

We also have vulnerable teenage single mothers, disabled grandmothers, lesbians, young teenage girls etc. One group doesn’t cancel the needs of the others.

Thanks again for all these excellent responses and thoughts.

There’s another thread started today asking for similar help, with some equally useful responses, in case useful for others facing similar BS:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4163856-Advice-and-moral-support-please-re-changing-womens-language?watched=1&msgid=104624811#104624811