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.

It wasn't expedient. I stand by my views. I just have two very, very similar threads one on top of the other.

I am well aware you have your own views which I respect.

What I don't is red trotting along to dictate to others how to behave.

I've never heard anything like it. Bloody troll threads run for weeks yet the snowflakes want me off because I made two mistakes.

That's some leap Butwasittherdriveway, I am suggesting that posters ignore the posts made by you which you have admitted you posted on the wrong thread in order that this thread remains on track and complies with the wishes of the person who started it.

Dragging in issues from another thread is something MNHQ are averse to, hence they may get the thread deleted and I am sure you don't want that, so ignoring your mistakes would seem the best solution, don't you think?

@RedDogsBeg

Agreed, Blibbyblobby, the poster who keeps confusing/forgetting which thread they are commenting on is causing this thread to veer off at a tangent and it's better to ignore and scroll past those posts. The OP has stated they do not want this thread to go the way of others and be deleted, as irritating as it it to let the wrong thread posts pass without response and correction, let's not give an excuse for deletion to happen.

Agreed. Scroll on past is good advice.

Oh and for the avoidance of doubt Butwasitherdriveway, I was responding to a post from another poster and I suggested avoiding posts that were meant for another thread not the poster.

@SweetPetrichor

You don’t ‘come out’ as GC. If I worked with you, I’d be reporting such behaviour for further education and disciplinary action. I reported similar behaviour relatively recently and it was handled very well. I don’t think you have anything to be proud of here and I hope any decent work place will remind you of company policy and/or professional behaviour.

It’s many pages back in this thread, but this example of black and white thinking is a stark reminder of the risks women are facing at work if they choose to speak out about women’s rights and the deliberate erosion of the language women need to protect those rights.

It’s many pages back in this thread, but this example of black and white thinking is a stark reminder of the risks women are facing at work if they choose to speak out about women’s rights and the deliberate erosion of the language women need to protect those rights.

Yes. It's chilling.

That's not what they're doing though.

Il give you an example.

I once worked with a colleague who was very vocal about her direct refusal to use a child's pronouns based on her views.

She saw herself as being brave and strong and standing up for her beliefs.

Management, colleagues and the child and their family didn't.

What we are saying is, you have to look at the bigger picture. Not just yours.

The behaviour OP described isn't going to lead to lead to a disciplinary.

Its just normal feedback on a communication draft.

SweetPetrichot is scaremongering. The "handled very well" remark is suitably vague to scare which is the intention. Disciplinary action is confidential, it is not published. SP will likely have been told their complaint has been handled but the rest is gossip.

There was that massive thread here where "Duncan" went off to moan to HR about someone and left the someone in terror for ages. He had a bit of damascene conversion and went to HR to recant. HR had done noting because nothing was to be done, people can say stuff, people can take the hump and moan to everyone, it never ends.

So SP is trying to intimidate.

What it's worth remembering is that orgs don't want to get into horrible expensive tribunals. HR people monitor them closely to see what's going on. Do you honestly think we want to start getting into the mess Maya's ex employer has got into? Or the mess Allison Bailey's has, how embarrassing being pushed around by that silly fool at Stonewall writing that nonsense letter. We now know to tread carefully with these accusations like SPs precisely because of these high profile cases.

FWIW I have decided that my pronouns are hi and hello
as that is how I am most commonly greeted face to face and in emails.

I agree that employers are starting to be more careful about the law
because Maya and Alison and Kiera have laid their lives bare
but
by golly its been a struggle, even compared with three years ago.

All I would say to any lurkers is
do not give your opinion
go down the
this is the wording in the legislation, are we sure that the document we are discussing complies
as then you are protecting your employer
not accusing them

"What does medical advice have to do with the OP?"

Through reading between the lines, it would appear that the OP has refused to sign off on some language that would not be clear enough for all users of the service (I believe it has been said it was health service) and therefore, were she to sign off on it, it would be professionally negligent of her.

Once again, NONE of this thread is about pronouns except when YOU keep bringing it into the thread again, Butwasit. Please separate the threads so that you stick to the right one!

@ThumbWitchesAbroad

"What does medical advice have to do with the OP?"

Through reading between the lines, it would appear that the OP has refused to sign off on some language that would not be clear enough for all users of the service (I believe it has been said it was health service) and therefore, were she to sign off on it, it would be professionally negligent of her.

Once again, NONE of this thread is about pronouns except when YOU keep bringing it into the thread again, Butwasit. Please separate the threads so that you stick to the right one!

My original one was a mistake but the recent example wasn't. It was just a bloody example. Get off my back.

But you keep bringing pronouns into a discussion and event that is clearly not about pronouns, the OP has explained what the issue was and it for the umpteenth time is not to do with pronouns so to keep using them as some kind of gotcha example is irrelevant.

Yeah OP hasn't done anything wrong but because of all the bullying and hounding tactics displayed in recent years, it is very scary at the moment to put yourself under the spotlight. Courage calls to courage everywhere.

@WallaceinAnderland

Yeah OP hasn't done anything wrong but because of all the bullying and hounding tactics displayed in recent years, it is very scary at the moment to put yourself under the spotlight. Courage calls to courage everywhere.

It certainly is, the fact that what the OP has done will actually benefit her employer, clients and users is just disregarded and dismissed by those scolding her.

@Floisme

Ah thank you! The one time I summoned up the nerve to query it, I was told they couldn't do anything about the wording as it wasn't theirs. Now I need to think of a diplomatic way of going back to tell them they're um... wrong. That should go well

@Floisme I’m pretty sure that at the end of a Survey Monkey, it says about doing your own one, although I’ve not taken them up on their offer so I don’t know for sure, so perhaps you could do that, then you can tell them

That's an idea EyesOpening I'm cross with myself because, if I'd been a bit more clued up about how it works before asking the question, it wouldn't have been so easy for them to fob me off with a big fat lie.

This kind of thinking from Stonewall top list employers is becoming so common.

Directly from a workplace recent much lauded "gender identity and expression guidelines - managers toolkit":

Workplace Facilities
Employees are permitted to use and will have access to facilities (such as restroom, locker or
changing facilities) corresponding to their gender identity and/ or gender expression. For example, a person who identifies as a man is permitted to use men’s restrooms, and a person who identifies as a woman is permitted to use women’s restrooms. All employees should determine the most appropriate and safest option for them.

Where available and where possible, any employee who has a need for increased privacy will be
provided access to a gender-neutral stand-alone toilet and changing facility. No employee, however,
shall be required to use such a facility.
Conversations with co-workers around concerns about restroom, locker or changing room access are
usually best handled by HR or the trainer at the initial meeting as they have the experience to deal
with the matter appropriately. Co-workers, who still have personal concerns about sharing a restroom or changing facility with a transgender individual, should be invited to have an honest discussion with an appropriate manager or the HR Business Partner. Ultimately, co-workers uncomfortable with sharing a restroom with a transgender individual should be the ones asked to travel to a different floor or work area to use the facilities (do not ask the transgender person to go out of their way.

So All employees should determine the most appropriate and safest option for them. Except those who don't agree that TWAW and TMAM and therefore aren't comfortable sharing with the opposite sex for whatever reason. :(

Ultimately, co-workers uncomfortable with sharing a restroom with a transgender individual should be the ones asked to travel to a different floor or work area to use the facilities (do not ask the transgender person to go out of their way.)

So a heavily pregnant woman, disabled colleague or woman with religious needs for single sex provision have to give way? Okey dokey. Good to know... (Note to Stonewall: there is no hierarchy of protected characteristics in the EA2010.)

Stonewall are not an employer, they are a flogger of ridiculous Americanised bullshit.

They have no control over employment law at all. They just make this shit up.

Feel free to ignore that policy.
www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/what-harassment-and-victimisation

If someone makes you feel uncomfortable, this applies.

Anything that is unwelcome to you is unwanted. You don’t need to have previously objected to it.

The unwanted behaviour must have the purpose or effect of violating your dignity, or creating a degrading, humiliating, hostile, intimidating or offensive environment for you.

To be unlawful, the treatment must have happened in one of the situations that are covered by the Equality Act. For example, in the workplace or when you are receiving goods or services.

Oh I know it's shite and the employer are wrong to buy into it, but they are heavily into being on "List of top 100 places to work" type things and are also v into getting the stonewall rainbow stamp of approval.

I think they might know this as it is very cunningly "guidelines" and not a policy. As opposed to just being done by someone not even thinking about it.