I just came out as GC at work, to the big boss and I feel a bit sick

[JustcameoutGC]

I have NCed for this. I have just outed myself as GC in work to the big boss (and some others cced in).

I was asked to sign off on something that I just couldn't and I said so, and explained why.

I literally feel sick. Like I have put a big fat GC target on my back. My org is totally woke. I wonder how many times my response has been forwarded already.

This has been an amazing thread for shining sunlight. Let's be careful not to let it go down a path that ends up in deletion.

This.

@allaboutthecrisps

So *@Butwasitherdriveway* I guess that puts the OP In a different light. She was standing up for people who would potentially be disadvantaged by the convoluted language suggested. Thank goodness.

But she wasn't. if she was, I'd agree with her. It's all about phrasing, as I said 14 pages ago.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

This has been an amazing thread for shining sunlight. Let's be careful not to let it go down a path that ends up in deletion.

This.

What would we be deleted for?

Or is this the usual game of accuse the poster with the alternative view of derailing?

I was also in the first year to be offered an HPV vaccine and that was what it was called- not the cervical cancer vaccine.

I hear they now offer it to boys as well, both to increase herd immunity against the cervical cancer-causing strains of HPV, and because HPV can lead to cancers in the mouth, throat or anus (if the person has oral or anal sex).

The jab now also includes the strain of HPV which causes genital warts.

I hope all those 12- and 13-year-old boys aren't being convinced that they have cervixes!

Yep @allaboutthecrisps that about sums it up. Before such radical change in language is built into health materials we must understand whether it impacts on accessibility to all groups, including young people, people who do not have English as a first language and those who may have some cognitive impairment. Inclusivity should not come at the expense of accessibility.

And please people do not stray too far from the path on this thread, it has brought so much sunlight, it needs to not be deleted.

@Bergamotte

I was also in the first year to be offered an HPV vaccine and that was what it was called- not the cervical cancer vaccine.

I hear they now offer it to boys as well, both to increase herd immunity against the cervical cancer-causing strains of HPV, and because HPV can lead to cancers in the mouth, throat or anus (if the person has oral or anal sex).

The jab now also includes the strain of HPV which causes genital warts.

I hope all those 12- and 13-year-old boys aren't being convinced that they have cervixes!

I vividly , vividly remember boys being told at the time they didn't need it as they didn't have a cervix. Vividly.

Have I just scored an own goal here?

@JustcameoutGC

Yep *@allaboutthecrisps* that about sums it up. Before such radical change in language is built into health materials we must understand whether it impacts on accessibility to all groups, including young people, people who do not have English as a first language and those who may have some cognitive impairment. Inclusivity should not come at the expense of accessibility.

And please people do not stray too far from the path on this thread, it has brought so much sunlight, it needs to not be deleted.

I agree with you, on this post.

But your original post was very much about you and your beliefs which is different isn't it

So many organisations that used to get by through local authority funding have had to reinvent themselves as charities. They survive by bidding all over the place for pots of money, and every time they bid they have to demonstrate how they meet certain criteria.

This, I think, is how a lot of smaller organisations are being corralled into line. It's not that they've all been taken over by lobbyists, it's because they're ducking and weaving to try to stay afloat.

@JustcameoutGC

Thank you all for the support. I made the step in the summer of talking to friends and family about this. That was hard. I have many friends on the other side of the debate, and the pandemic has meant those conversations have been left hanging.

I have been really hesitant to do or say anything in the workplace. But I had to today, primarily because in my professional view there is a reputational risk of our company being associated with exclusive gender neutral language such as cervix havers or chest feeders as well as the risk of confusing the people the material is aimed at. This risk needs to be properly assessed and managed before this radical change in language is adopted. I would have been negligent not to speak up.

This is in addition to my personal views that erasure of women from language, particularly around health, is really damaging and disenfranshising.

I don't think I have ever gotten past a handful of replies to anything I have ever posted. Trending is new to me. I have never been trendy.

The OPs motivations were made clear in this post and are rooted in her professional ethics, integrity and responsibility.

As she says, "I would have been negligent not to speak up."

(Derailing and distraction attempts are simply that)

Yawn to the derailing and direction. It's old and it's boring. Thankfully it is getting thrown around less and less on these posts by posters who recognise not everything needs to be a yay go you echo chamber.

There is not onecpost in this entire conversation that is a derail.

The OPs motivations were made clear in this post and are rooted in her professional ethics, integrity and responsibility.

As she says, "I would have been negligent not to speak up."

(Derailing and distraction attempts are simply that)

This. It's best to focus on the subject of the thread, which is the difficulty of raising professional concerns around these ideas in the current climate.

This, I think, is how a lot of smaller organisations are being corralled into line. It's not that they've all been taken over by lobbyists, it's because they're ducking and weaving to try to stay afloat.

Yes that's a fair point.

@JustcameoutGC

Yep *@allaboutthecrisps* that about sums it up. Before such radical change in language is built into health materials we must understand whether it impacts on accessibility to all groups, including young people, people who do not have English as a first language and those who may have some cognitive impairment. Inclusivity should not come at the expense of accessibility.

And please people do not stray too far from the path on this thread, it has brought so much sunlight, it needs to not be deleted.

we must understand whether it impacts on accessibility to all groups, including young people, people who do not have English as a first language and those who may have some cognitive impairment. Inclusivity should not come at the expense of accessibility.

This is so very important.

I would also point out, there are a heck of a lot of people that learn stuff in school that doesn't really seem to enter their brains at all, or if it does, it makes a very swift exit.

Yes, definitely!

It's best to focus on the subject of the thread, which is the difficulty of raising professional concerns around these ideas in the current climate.

Indeed.

Current relevant thread, OP yourhairiswinterfire wrote
"Maya Forstater finally has a date for her appeal!
twitter.com/MForstater/status/1317491923536564226

27-28th April 21.

From the Crowd Justice update too: The free speech organisation Index on Censorship has also been given permission to intervene to highlight the legal issues around freedom of speech.

I've got everything crossed that she'll be vindicated and some sanity will be restored."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4053329-Maya-Forstater-finally-has-a-date-for-her-appeal

@Ereshkigalangcleg

The OPs motivations were made clear in this post and are rooted in her professional ethics, integrity and responsibility.

As she says, "I would have been negligent not to speak up."

(Derailing and distraction attempts are simply that)

This. It's best to focus on the subject of the thread, which is the difficulty of raising professional concerns around these ideas in the current climate.

Mm.

Except thars what we were doing.

It just isn't an echo chamber.

All I have done is raise the problems in relation to that.

If you guys want to cheerlead people into doing something pretending that no workplace ever would have any kind of issue within t, regardless on whether that's right or wrong, that's fine, but ....

I think it's been very clear all the way through that the OP has had to take a professional stand that has made her fearful for her security in her job, which isn't surprising, given that other women have lost their jobs for stating views that could be seen as GC.

That fear is real and it is substantiated. And many other posters have thanked the OP for making that stand - because it's a risky time to do it.

Her professional motivation to ensure that documentation adheres to the actual LAW and not to some Stonewall variation of it is also clear.

Except I point blank refuse to believe someone's TEENAGER daughter currently in existence somewhere between 13 and 18 doesn't know they have a cervix.

Refuse away.

You are also disbelieving that the OP felt worried about talking to her company about the very thing that you're saying you don't believe!

She's worried, because talking about sex categories in relation to who does and who doesn't have a cervix, is considered wrong. You can't even bring yourself to say that it's women and girls who have a bloody cervix.

Even when you are asked point-blank how people know, you can't bring yourself to say the words.

Yet you deride her trepidation in addressing this very issue at work.

It's breathtaking.

You are upholding an ideology that says we can't talk about sex categories in terms of who has a cervix, but is simultaneously utterly relying on the fact that we all know what the sex categories are.

@Leafstamp what impact on these groups would using pronouns have?

@Datun

Except I point blank refuse to believe someone's TEENAGER daughter currently in existence somewhere between 13 and 18 doesn't know they have a cervix.

Refuse away.

You are also disbelieving that the OP felt worried about talking to her company about the very thing that you're saying you don't believe!

She's worried, because talking about sex categories in relation to who does and who doesn't have a cervix, is considered wrong. You can't even bring yourself to say that it's women and girls who have a bloody cervix.

Even when you are asked point-blank how people know, you can't bring yourself to say the words.

Yet you deride her trepidation in addressing this very issue at work.

It's breathtaking.

You are upholding an ideology that says we can't talk about sex categories in terms of who has a cervix, but is simultaneously utterly relying on the fact that we all know what the sex categories are.

We've moved on from that.

[quote Butwasitherdriveway]@FrancesGumm but just because others feel similar doesn't make it right.[/quote]
It doesn't make it wrong either @Butwasitherdriveway . It's her truth, and I would wager she speaks for most women. For women who care about women's safety and women's rights, and our very identity as women.

@ThumbWitchesAbroad

I think it's been very clear all the way through that the OP has had to take a professional stand that has made her fearful for her security in her job, which isn't surprising, given that other women have lost their jobs for stating views that could be seen as GC.

That fear is real and it is substantiated. And many other posters have thanked the OP for making that stand - because it's a risky time to do it.

Her professional motivation to ensure that documentation adheres to the actual LAW and not to some Stonewall variation of it is also clear.

I hope all the same posters who jumped on me and picked apart my posts for pages for saying the same thing are going to do it again, since I'm a scaremongering fraud.

But they won't.

Because pointing out the possible repercussions is only OK if you agree with OP.

PP can't have it both ways . You either accept it's brave and rishy or not but you can't call her brave and then pretend there's no possible repercussions.

It's her truth, and I would wager she speaks for most women. For women who care about women's safety and women's rights, and our very identity as women.

Yes, she does.

@Butwasitherdriveway

I don't think she has, I'm afraid.

She has been very, VERY brave. She stood up for women when we are being persecuted the most. Of course those who choose to just jump on bandwagons without seeing the consequences will find it easier to go with the flow, and not see the strength of character it takes to take a stand.

So we admit there are possible repercussions for this?