First 'chat with HR'

[Iwasonlytryingtohelp]

I mentioned LGB Alliance in a conf call (HR director asked for input on which diversity and inclusion external groups to engage with). Someone stated it was a transphobic organisation, so I just said I was happy to discuss off line. Today I have been approached by my HR business partner 'to chat'.

My fingers are crossed that they're inviting you in to talk about how you think LGB Alliance can help with training and policy formation in your company. FWIW I work in an HR-adjacent role, and there are several GC women in our HR department quietly beavering away behind the scenes trying to prevent and even reverse the worst of the Stonewall-trained nonsense (my company is in the Diversity Champions programme).

I've come off twitter because the abuse was making me physically shake with anxiety every time I went on there

You're demonstrating open mindedness, lack of political bias to one group in preference to others, an interest in listening to all voices including the ones stating feeling disenfranchised, not represented, conflicting interests.

Frankly it's a stronger HR position than an unthinking, vigorous I'm a goodie, those are the baddies strongly partisan political position! Don't get manoevered into 'if you're not strongly virtue signalling then you must be bad'. The virtue signalling should be thoroughly questioned and impartiality maintained.

GC = gender critical. Handy shorthand for anyone who is critical of gender identity ideology, the belief that gender identity trumps biological sex. GC people believe that sex is real and politically relevant, and gender is a set of damaging social stereotypes. Lots of different shades of belief are under the GC banner, but I think that's the core. Feel free to disagree, anyone.

Thanks to the snowflakes and the woke brigade people have to tread on eggshells now and watch every word they say. This is so WRONG!

If it helps at all, I'm a lesbian who has felt completely abandoned and betrayed by Stonewall for many years now and would jump at the chance to work for an organisation where the LGB Alliance is recognised — because it says a lot about the independent-mindedness and real concern of an employer who doesn't just follow the crowd but does the best for their LGB staff. Good luck. I hope you're in for a pleasant surprise.

Lots of different shades of belief are under the GC banner

I think that's fair comment. Sex class as a political category is key in Marxism, and the very right of centre Liz Truss seems to know what a woman is and that they have vaginas.

Good luck, it might be a positive step. I also work in a Stonewalled public sector org and have been quietly standing up for women's rights, in a non-confrontational way (as sounds like you have). It's always been treated with respect and tolerance (including by HR) - but my heart still hammers every time I do it. Most of the time it's that the people I speak to are completely unaware that there is this side to it that is extremely damaging to women's and children's rights. I have met a few who are confused that they feel uneasy about things, yet want to be open and tolerant to an ideology they don't fully understand - they're unaware there is a wide network of us who feel the same way.

[quote YoBeaches]@JediGnot OP has said nothing about a complaint. She made a suggestion in a HR meeting and they are taking her up on her offer to chat offline.

Fabulous.[/quote]
Sorry, I meant complaint as in "the person in the meeting who 'complained' that LGB alliance is homophobic". Based on OP I hope you're right, but it seems to me that there might be an element of HR wanting to make sure OP isn't being bigoted, as well as an element of "we want to learn from different perspectives amongst our staff".

And even if it isn't a complaint about OP right now, I am sure that if OP were to go in unprepared and speak carelessly HR might complain about her themselves!

Charity Commission’s evidence-based decision to register LGB Alliance here:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/lgb-alliance/lgb-alliance-full-decision

Did the person make this allegation in public? That would be very interesting.

@thepuredrop

I'd be seriously tempted to ask that before the meeting you would like HR to speak to the original complainant and have them explain what is transphobic about LGB Alliance

I think don’t mention it unless HR directly refer to it. Go with the suggestion by PPs about LGBA campaigning for same-sex attracted people. If HR raise it, point to Charity Commission’s explanation re awarding LGBA charitable status, expressing your surprise and confusion that they could be considered transphobic.

You may be right. I was kinda thinking that OP could get her point across before the meeting if HR are forced to come back to her and say "we have spoken to the person who said it, and she says that it is transphobic to support same sex attracted people without supporting trans people as well" or "we have spoken to the person who said it, and she says that it is transphobic to believe that lesbians can't have penises"

Well done, OP.

I would print off material from LGB Alliance's webpage and take along for evidence.

Dont feel pushed into saying anything you're not comfortable with.

I don’t see gender as anything other than invented and offensive stereotypes not backed up by biology.

My advice would be to take notes or record the conversation.

@Iwasonlytryingtohelp

I mentioned LGB Alliance in a conf call (HR director asked for input on which diversity and inclusion external groups to engage with). Someone stated it was a transphobic organisation, so I just said I was happy to discuss off line. Today I have been approached by my HR business partner 'to chat'.

Looking purely at the facts here, are HR just following up on your offer to discuss LGB Alliance offline?

I would write to HR asking them the nature of the meeting, how long the meeting will be and check whether you can attend with a union rep or colleague. Do NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES go the meeting without first having an idea of its scope and second without having someone with you. You need to take this very seriously and have everything in writing. Good luck.

Good HR departments are very interested in the opinions and knowledge employees have. On this subject they must have been inundated recently with information that doesn't align with Stonewall Law. They'll be looking at all sorts of things.

So the person who said LGBA were transphobic is not the HR person. HR person is friendly and 'only just reading up on this stuff' but clearly found some of the headlines about LGBA concerning and was worried that my recommending LGB Alliance I could make some people feel uncomfortable. I made the following points in, I think, a non-confrontational way:

1. Charity commission made a decision in LGBA's favour based on evidence.
2. Multiple charities exist to suit different groups. It is legitimate to have a group focussing on same sex attraction. Not all people within a group necessarily think the same way.
3. I used to be a Stonewall supporter but now it is not for me, and I'd be disappointed if we aligned ourselves too closely (at which point HR said yes we need to make sure we are inclusive for everyone) due to their stance in some areas.
4. As a company we should ask ourselves what do we want to get from external enagement - and at what price? Shouldn't we identify our problems and use our vocal internal network groups to identify actions?
5. I stated Stonewall has misrepresented the law and we should avoid being misled by their approach
6. Let's not lose sight of the other EDI areas of concern e.g. disability, race

They asked me to send links. I am sending the charity commission link and if I can find it the one about uni of essex. any other recommendations for factual, legal, evidenced docs?

Also said that I would not knowingly recommend a transphobic organisation.

No doubt in my mind that my thinking was being checked for acceptability.

I'm in HR and am GC - we do exist! I'd suggest keeping your cards close to your chest in the first instance, scope out the nature of the conversation - as pp said, it would be a face value taking you up on your offer to discuss off line. If need be, I'd go down the line of correct interpretation of the EA, make sure they understand this is a live and complex issue.

Good luck.

This was the write up of the Essex University case in Personnel Today a couple of days ago:
www.personneltoday.com/hr/stonewalls-diversity-scheme-accused-of-being-unlawful/

Absolute belter of a response OP.

Bloody well done.

x-post. Sounds like you've done well, dismayed about the 'checking thinking' aspect of all this though.

Sounds like you kept a cool head. I hope they have taken what you said on board. It would be interesting to know whether they have interviewed the person who challenged you as well.