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'.

No. Just good old Scottish misogyny I’m afraid.

Neoliberals favour rights for the individual; whereas Socialists are supposed to look at the impact of policies on the class or group.

www.thoughtco.com/what-is-neoliberalism-definition-and-examples-5072548

But the socialists aren't though are they? And lord alone knows what the Marxists (haha, so-called student types) are plotting.

Good to hear this update. Maya Forstater's finding means that your right to think what you think and express that belief in an appropriate manner is beyond doubt and I hope now that any GC colleagues will make themselves known to you. You've done a good thing. You've shown that GC people are considered, well-informed and have the law and evidence behind them. Thank you.

I agree that the trans issue has taken hold as much to do with ingrained misogyny as anything else. (And agree my Westminister joke is really funny )

But for anyone who hasn't heard (or read it) please do take the time to listen to Selina Todd on the origins of trans activism and how the growth of queer politics enabled this.

I post this link quite often, and usually say it is funny how a socialist feminist academic can say something based on research and be applauded, but when at the time this all started and radical feminists warned about the consequences they were dismissed by lefties who always assume they are on the right side of women.

I think the origins of the theory are on the left, but have been a finanicial opportunity as an area of growth (ie US medical practices).

But I think it took hold because in the end women aren't valued, and in some cases hated, so any arguement that says women rights can be ignored gets a huge amount of support.

Not forgetting that if you say sex isn't real then there cant be sexism, so men as a sex class cant be said to be oppressing women as a sex class. Best get out of jail card free for men, whether on the left or the right, is to say the basis on which women are oppressed, ie their sex, is to say sex isn't real. And what happens to women can therefore never ever be said to be the result of men, and their system of oppression, patriarchy.

Best get out of jail card free for men, whether on the left or the right, is to say the basis on which women are oppressed, ie their sex, is to say sex isn't real.

Thank you Maya for getting a judgement that a belief that sex is real is worthy of respect in a democratic society

With Maya's landmark decision. Gender Critical beliefs are a protected characteristic and Gender theory beliefs are a protected characteristic.

@Iwasonlytryingtohelp LGB-Alliance are very clear that they are same-sex (and not same-gender) attracted. The judgment shows this belief is not transphobic. There are 3 paragraphs on LGB rights in this piece which your HR director might find interesting
www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly/

Thanks everyone. I think there's no need for me to poke the wasp nest and one would hope there has been enough mainstream discussion now that they won't poke me either.

Slightly off topic but...
I do think there is a great deal of misogyny in Scotland as well as just more old-fashioned attitudes. DH and I moved here 15 years ago and even he noticed attitudes are years behind rest of UK in many respects. Very strong sex stereotypes. I caused shock when discussing household workload with a group of women friends (all couples are part of our friendship group). All the women have professional and mainly full-time jobs. One was talking about logistical challenge of getting kids to school. I asked which days her DH dropped them off or collected them and they all looked at me like I was mad! But you do share the load, right? I asked. Cue tumbleweed....

@toffeebutterpopcorn

I am so angry that resources and nerves are being spent arguing that water is wet and grass is green.

How did we get here?

I'm more angry that my taxes are being spent arguing that grass is purple and that water can identify as dry if it wants to.

I am also furious that ‘inclusive’ resources are needed elsewhere but this is the focus.

My terminally ill sister is going blind. She wants to be independent and would happily go out any about - but I worry for her safety. She is someone who would want to go and try on every pair of trousers in the store - but in John Lewis or M&S considering their funky new policy? I even raised this with JL at the time and they basically told me to get lost and not ask them again.

I guess a flag in the window and staff badges with pronouns fixes all ills, eh?

@BlackForestCake

I wonder how much of the SNP stance on trans issues is to put two fingers up to Westminster?!

They would be putting two fingers up to Westminster much more effectively if they campaigned for independence as is supposedly their raison d'etre, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside in favour of this stuff. I therefore conclude that's not the reason.

Lots of SNP policy is aimed at keeping the SNP in power. Various people have noted that independence is no longer their main aim, if they even want it at all. So yes, whatever WM does Sturgeon want a to visibly diverge from. An issue like this they consider perfect as in their somewhat dim view there are v few trans people so it hardly effects anyone (the women affected don't seem to matter). But eith the SNP it's all about optics - remember how fast they dropped their objections to the sex/gender amendment in the Forensic examiner bill?

As soon as they realise TWAW is an unpopular issue they'll drop it.

Er, sorry for ranty derail! Glad things have settled down and moved on OP.

Taking tips on this for work

OP think about the bottom line here: every employer is keen to avoid lawsuits and loss of corporate reputation. The growing body of legal and other references that you can provide to them around this issue is very helpful to them. Your beliefs are now protected by Maya’s case also.

If you don’t feel safe to present any of this as your own political views then you can simply say helpfully from a professional/corporate reputational perspective that there is a deep controversy around this area at present and organisationally there needs to always be a balance of views represented otherwise the organisation will find itself in trouble. Talk about how the HR people can use this balance to demonstrate genuine commitments to workplace diversity and all employees feeling they can bring their whole selves to work back at them.

I really wish I could pin this on FWR but I'll repeat it as often as necessary:

Secretly record all your calls with HR or management, especially if it's related to GC stuff.

Secretly record all your calls with HR or management

YES

@FindTheTruth

Secretly record all your calls with HR or management

YES

I didn't think you could do this legally if intending to use as evidence?

I think it's better to be above board and open. Better to email your understanding of the content of the discussion as minutes to your colleague for them to confirm it is also their understanding. This came up earlier in the thread.

I don't think secretly recording anyone is a good idea. If you're worried, surely you can say, 'I'm going to take a recording of this, is that okay?'

It's always a good idea. Google Lindsay Shephard.

I advised a friend to secretly record a disciplinary meeting she had at work (nothing to do with TRA stuff) before they fired her.

When I listened to it they had breached ACAS code in multiple ways. I wrote her a 4-page letter where I pointed out all the ways they had breached it - never stating we had a recording; I didn't need to - and she got a £4K payout.

If you say "can we record the meeting?" and they say no, what can you do about it?

If you record the meeting you can listen back to it calmly and quietly after and identify the myriad of ways they have behaved unprofessionally or breached the law.

I still regret not regretting my exit meeting at one workplace where I was told I hadn't gotten a promotion because I didn't play football after work with clients. Indirect sexism. Slam dunk case.

Always record. You rarely have to disclose it and, if you do, your workplace will be so horrified at the thought of what you might have on tape - and what you might do with it - the actual gray area legality of it doesn't matter. (And anyway in the UK I believe we may have 1-party consent laws).

*I still regret not recording my exit meeting

It's often very difficult to take in what people are saying during meetings, especially when you're nervous/emotions are high/there are numerous people in the room - let alone remember them verbatim.

You can't use a secret recording as evidence; but how would a tribunal respond if you say you asked for the right to record and transcribe, and they refused?

The way to use a secret recording like that is after the meeting you use the recording to produce a contemporaneous written account which you say was based on your immediate recollection of the meeting. This is not a transcript of the recording. That can count as evidence and can sometimes be quite persuasive.

As FightingtheFoo wrote, if you're in a complete bind like Lindsay Shephard simply releasing the recording into the public domain can be extraordinarily effective. However, this is a nuclear option and, as can be seen from her case, it's consumed her life.

@Thelnebriati
Its not leftish, its neoliberal; and was originally pushed by the neoliberal right, especially here in the UK.

That sounds logical (it beggars belief that people and parties supposedly on the 'left' can go along with campaigns to remove protection for the female sex from the Equality Act), but is there evidence that it has been pushed directly by the neoliberal right?

Or are we just reframing people and parties that support sexism?