Stonewall statement on misinformation about the Diversity Champions Programme

[WhatyoutalkingaboutWillis]

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-misinformation-about-diversity-champions-programme

Finally, as part of our work with employers we acknowledge that there has been a lack of clarity around non-binary identities within the current legal framework. However, the recent Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover employment tribunal found that non-binary and gender fluid people are protected by the Equality Act. For employers who wish to go above and beyond the law in creating inclusive workplaces, we suggest that internal policies could refer to ‘gender identity’ as a term that more clearly includes all trans, non-binary and gender diverse people.

Am I over reacting to the sentence "For employers who wish to go above and beyond the law"

It’s all very well going above and beyond the law but those actions must still be within the law.

"Dear motorists, it's absolutely fine to drive at 60mph in this 40mph zone! Our interpretation of the speed limit is higher than that outdated sign, and anyway we're lobbying to change it officially! Get ahead of the law!"

In most contexts, gender identity is an appropriate, inclusive, and well-understood term, so – in line with the UK Government and with international standards – we talk about gender identity in our everyday communications. Similarly, when we describe the Equality Act’s protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, we refer to ‘gender identity’ to explain who is covered by the law and how they are protected, as the EHRC does in their Code of Practice.

Nice conflation of “gender reassignment” and “gender identity”, with the suggestion that EHRC uses gender ID in the CoP as interchangeable with the PC of gender reassignment.

In most contexts, gender identity is an appropriate, inclusive, and well-understood term

No it isn’t.

Use whatever words you like Stonewall, you haven't actually convinced anyone of anything. The opposite in fact.

Not read all the posts but will !

I liked this:

'We believe these attacks are threadbare and deliberately organised and coordinated to undermine support for our work to ensure every LGBTQ+ employee can thrive at work.'

Problem is that believing something is different to it being true. A longrunning theme in all of this!

Organised and coordinated? Come on let's have it then? Organised and coordinated by who? A person? Some groups? Mumsnet
Nice scary sounding statement. With no evidence at all. Not even a hint.

I like the idea as well that it's about all the letters. Homophobia! Pah. Roping in groups with loads of people who are utterly fucked off with them, in their 'defence'.

The jaguar case was about bullying.

Sounds like the employee had a terrible time.

No one should be bullied.

'A gender-fluid worker has won an employment tribunal against Jaguar Land Rover (JLR).

Ms R Taylor brought claims against the company, saying she had suffered abuse and a lack of support.

She successfully argued she suffered harassment and discrimination because of gender reassignment.

In a statement, JLR apologised to Ms Taylor for her experiences during her employment and said it continued to strive to improve in this area.'

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-54180794

There is some stuff about bogs but don't know whether the men were being awful in the gents or what.

A question on the jaguar bullying case.

I've not been able to find whether the colleagues who worked with this engineer and who harrassed and bullied were male or female, nor what their stance on queer theory is.

It's possible it was a bunch of feminists, or a bunch of men who had been radicalised by women who don't believe it's a good idea to change laws and words in ways that will be detrimental to women.

It's also possible that it was a blokey workplace and it was bog standard men doing this. That seems unlikely though if what I've read on Twitter is true.

Hmm jaguar site says

'Men dominate the UK automotive industry, filling 91% of engineering roles'

I still think that these shadowy coordinated women are to blame.

I think it's additionally difficult to assess matters when so much detail is unknown and some of the parties involved have a general history of poor form for engaging with arguments and accurate reporting.

Thanks to everyone for the information.

NiceGerbil I suspect you’re overthinking it. The usual pack mentality is picking on someone because they are perceived as different.

That JLR case is being made to do a lot of heavy lifting. I find that interesting.

I’m mulling over how an organisation that gets a great deal of funding from the public purse, directly and indirectly, can react to FOIs as if they were somehow an insult. That really is quite odd. They might be annoying, but institutions have to deal with them as best they can because accountability is still a thing, no matter how great you think you are.

@rogdmum

It’s all very well going above and beyond the law but those actions must still be within the law.

Stealing that. Perfectly put.

[quote KarmaViolet]There's an interesting post on it here legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/05/22/to-boldly-go-why-going-beyond-the-law-risks-unlawful-discrimination/[/quote]
I thought that immediately to go beyond the law would possibly diminish the rights of other groups protected by law. Hmm who could they be ..

@rogdmum

It’s all very well going above and beyond the law but those actions must still be within the law.

Spot on.

It’s all very well going above and beyond the law but those actions must still be within the law.

This!
If Best Practice Guidance ends up compromising the protections afforded by the original law, it leaves the user in a worse situation then if they'd just done the bare minimum.

Procrastinator it's a first instance decision and therefore not binding, but even so, it doesn't tell us much. The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had told her employers she was intending to undergo gender reassignment as far back as 2017 - bringing her from that moment within the scope of s.7 Equality Act which defines gender reassignment as undergoing, proposing to undergo, and having undergone gender reassignment. That must be right: if someone announced an intention to transition and was bullied in the workplace and left soon after, the employer could not say "well, they didn't have time to transition as they were bullied out for announcing an intention to do so, therefore they are not protected."

The Claimant said, and the Tribunal accepted, that in March 2017 she had told her employer that she intended to transition, and that she was transitioning from male to female (para 19). She later in April and May described her current state as "gender fluid" but there is no suggestion she had renounced her stated intention to transition to female (and indeed she gave evidence to WESC describing herself as a trans woman). In June HR were describing her as transitioning and using 'she' pronouns.

The employer's paper-thin defence until mid proceedings was that the Claimant hadn't named the people who were bullying her and therefore they couldn't possibly be expected to deal with it.

It was only after proceedings began, at a case management hearing, that the employer - one hypothesises, shitting themselves and grasping for straws - noticed the words 'gender fluid' and tried to argue that if the claimant was gender fluid then she didn't count as trans for the purposes of the Equality Act.

That was absolutely doomed. Her stated intention to transition from March 2017 brought her within the s.7 definition whether or not she had ever followed it through.

However, it doesn't follow that a person who had not stated an intention to undergo gender reassignment but simply "identified" as non binary would be covered. It would be fact specific and would be up to the tribunal to make findings as to whether they were covered, depending on what they had said. "I identify as non binary" is unlikely to attract protection, whereas "I am undergoing a process of transition and currently view myself as non binary" quite possibly would.

@Paralithic

NiceGerbil I suspect you’re overthinking it. The usual pack mentality is picking on someone because they are perceived as different.

I was being sarcastic!

Sorry if that didn't come across.

Of course it was men bullying the non conforming man in the very male dominated blokey workplace.

I just find it interesting how all of that sort of thing is somehow supposed to be women's fault. Apparently men like that listen to feminists, and not any old ones, the old school patriarchy is bad type. Who knew??!!

That’s v interesting, thank you bluebell

Ah, sorry NiceGerbil, my irony meter needs recalibration.

I worked as a (usually the only) female engineer in the 1980s and 1990s and it was hard going. Being different (and often better qualified and experienced) put a big target on your back.

NiceGerbil not all of the comments are attributed to men or women, but reading through the decision, the dehumanising "it" and "that" comments which are absolutely indefensible seem to have been from men, or mostly from men. However there are instances attributed to women - for example, one of the women said "nice to see you in your attire, you have cracking legs" and the Tribunal accepted that this was unwanted conduct and that "Clearly, this was unacceptable, and would be equally unacceptable if a male made this comment to a female." (para 80)

Tellingly, they didn't consider whether it would be unacceptable if a female made this comment to a female. Maybe I've just worked in unacceptable places, but women complimenting each other's legs (or dress, or new jacket, or weight loss, or ankles, or skin, or godaloneknowswhatelse), would seem so commonplace as to be unremarkable.

At Stonewall, we imagine a world ...

Reindorf report: In my view the policy states the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is.

... where all LGBTQ+ people are free to be themselves and can live their lives to the full. Inclusive workplaces have a huge part to play in this making this world a reality.

All LGBTQ+ people? All 'Q' people and assorted unnamed +'s should be 'free to be themselves' including in the workplace?

We don't have to imagine this world. We've seen where it ends up:

A wanky rubberman creating porn in the toilets while at work at NSPCC and the charity calling anyone who objects a homophobe.

A vulnerable and messed up young person, who spends most of their time hanging around with much older paedophiles, continuing to be a named adviser to Stonewall even after serious safeguarding issues had been raised related to this person's involvement in the green party.

Jess Bradley. Nuff said.

The answer is 'no'.

@Sophoclesthefox

That JLR case is being made to do a lot of heavy lifting. I find that interesting.

I’m mulling over how an organisation that gets a great deal of funding from the public purse, directly and indirectly, can react to FOIs as if they were somehow an insult. That really is quite odd. They might be annoying, but institutions have to deal with them as best they can because accountability is still a thing, no matter how great you think you are.

Well Stonewall itself is not subject to FOIs; it has been spending its time getting involved with FOI requests made to its ‘champions’, and reading through them it is clear that they have been encouraging those ‘champions’ to obfuscate and refuse to give out the information requested, often by tell them to cite ‘commercial concerns’ that would be detrimental to Stonewall’s business model.

Of course it was men bullying the non conforming man in the very male dominated blokey workplace.

I just find it interesting how all of that sort of thing is somehow supposed to be women's fault.

Say, you must be one of the newer fellas*... Everything is women's fault!

*I know that you're not. I just saw an opportunity to quote from High Society and took it.

Above and beyond the law is chilling. Can we please have an inquiry into Stonewall law quite, quite soon?