Re-training

[TirisfalPumpkin]

It occurs to me, in light of the ongoing slow-mo fall of Stonewall, that many organisations have been using their materials and ideology in training their staff for years. Their take on the law has been routine, reproduced in internal training materials, repeated so often it becomes unquestioned.

There are thousands of line managers who think the stubbly new recruit is entitled to use the ladies' facilities on a self-ID basis. They've been told repeatedly by an authority invited by their employer that this is the law, to do otherwise would be to invite a discrimination claim, and who's got time to sit and pore over the statute books and verify information when you've got 15 1:1s and your own performance review to prep for on top of your day job.

I think as well as getting this unlawful misinformation out of workplaces, schools and universities, making available some refresher training on what the EA2010 actually says would be beneficial - perhaps as part of a wider 'deconditioning' of factually-dubious material pushing a particular agenda. By this I mean less controversial social theories without context, no fad theories or management/psychology pseudoscience (unconscious bias / emotional intelligence) being presented as scientific fact, no lobby groups, everything evidence-based with direct references to the law / research.

I wonder how this could be pulled together and made palatable for employers. A credible organisation would need to deliver it. They're not going to buy anything adversarial or overtly anti-SW (who have done a lot of good pre-2015) - but I think just quietly doing away with Stonewall law will not be enough.

People do need to know about equality law and they've been misdirected, that needs actively putting right, not just leaving to fester.

The AEA have started the process
aealliance.co.uk/what-we-do/

The AEA crowdfunded an information leaflet to be sent out to big organisations.

More of this needs to be done but I also think a clear statement from an official body is needed.

That's Ann Sinnott's organisation, isn't it? They'd be really well-placed.

^Ultra vires guidance stood for 10 years. During that time, the guidance was directly accessed many thousands of times. The guidance was also widely disseminated by management consultancies, training agencies, trans-focused training organisations and lobby groups. As a consequence, the misguidance can be seen in the EDI policies of countless organisations.
^

Thought that was well put.

I guess the worry is, if this isn't corrected, either the 'misguidance' will continue to be used as ingrained knowledge even if no longer actively trained out - or people will become cynical about all aspects of equality training at work (i.e. they got x y z wrong, maybe they're also wrong about race/disability, I'll just make up my own rules etc) which we don't want.

I agree with you, OP. Even if we stop teaching gender in schools we're going to have to be prepared for a generation or even two of young people rising up the management ladder who were taught in school and university that gender is more important than sex and that you can self-ID as whatever you feel like. They may well be passing those irrational beliefs on to their children. This isn't going to go away without firming up legislation to ensure that women women say no they are backed up by the law.

@TirisfalPumpkin

It occurs to me, in light of the ongoing slow-mo fall of Stonewall, that many organisations have been using their materials and ideology in training their staff for years. Their take on the law has been routine, reproduced in internal training materials, repeated so often it becomes unquestioned.

There are thousands of line managers who think the stubbly new recruit is entitled to use the ladies' facilities on a self-ID basis. They've been told repeatedly by an authority invited by their employer that this is the law, to do otherwise would be to invite a discrimination claim, and who's got time to sit and pore over the statute books and verify information when you've got 15 1:1s and your own performance review to prep for on top of your day job.

I think as well as getting this unlawful misinformation out of workplaces, schools and universities, making available some refresher training on what the EA2010 actually says would be beneficial - perhaps as part of a wider 'deconditioning' of factually-dubious material pushing a particular agenda. By this I mean less controversial social theories without context, no fad theories or management/psychology pseudoscience (unconscious bias / emotional intelligence) being presented as scientific fact, no lobby groups, everything evidence-based with direct references to the law / research.

I wonder how this could be pulled together and made palatable for employers. A credible organisation would need to deliver it. They're not going to buy anything adversarial or overtly anti-SW (who have done a lot of good pre-2015) - but I think just quietly doing away with Stonewall law will not be enough.

People do need to know about equality law and they've been misdirected, that needs actively putting right, not just leaving to fester.

Trouble is your argument is flawed, and Stonewall have been following what is in the equality act which equally protects characteristics of sex and gender reassignment - one who is or is proposing to undergo same.

In essence, the equality act is already self ID. That seems to be what people do not get (or blindfully ignore wishing otherwise).

So a person wishing to use the ladies (again the toilet thing - really?) is entitled and protected to do so if they are undergoing or proposing to undergo gender re-assignment. They don't need a certificate or specialist to sign that off. They self id as that.

Ann Sidcot was thrown out of court for attempting to challenge this. It didn't even make first base.

So even if another organisation was giving the training, it doesnt change the facts on the ground since 2010 that self id has effectively been in place and trans people can use the toilets of their choice and have been doing so for 10+ years. With no major moral panic!

And they still can be segregated if there is a legitimate purpose. But it has to be legitimate and that can be tested.

Hope that helps!

Shedbuilder have a little more faith in young people. They haven't all fallen for the gender hype. My DGS is very sceptical and he's been in the middle of this. When they first started with their SW training, he decided he was trans. We just left him to it and he is now hetero, not even gay, so lots jumped on this because it was cool without having any 'gender' issues.

Have faith

Some of them haven't, I agree, but some of them have — and IME those who have tend to be the type to pursue it and make a thing of it. These days they're learning at nursery that girls can be boys and vice versa.

Forgot to add that faith isn't enough. You can rely on faith if you want, but I want the law tightened and strengthened so that any woman or girl can ask a male-sexed person to leave the women's changing room, or refuse to allow them access to a women's group or a lesbian event, without losing sleep over whether she'll be prosecuted. We need something stronger than faith to tackle the fear.

@Shedbuilder

Forgot to add that faith isn't enough. You can rely on faith if you want, but I want the law tightened and strengthened so that any woman or girl can ask a male-sexed person to leave the women's changing room, or refuse to allow them access to a women's group or a lesbian event, without losing sleep over whether she'll be prosecuted. We need something stronger than faith to tackle the fear.

It already exists if there is a legitimate aim, and it is just not transphobia or bigotry.

But you need to be legitimate in your exclusion attempt. Discomfort due to bias against another is not legitimate. It would be same as excluding someone from an event as they are not of the racial or class background that you are personally happy with. That is why the equality act exists.

What you are asking for is more segregation. That is your right - but do expect to be called out for it.

MishyJDI

It’s interesting that you fail to get both the law and Ann Sinnott’s name right.

EHRC confirmed in court that a person with a GRC can be excluded from a single sex space under the Equality Act as it stands now.

There is no right to self ID into single sex spaces.

From the EHRC
“a service provider provides single-sex services. If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your gender identity. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing, intends to undergo or has undergone gender reassignment”

One of the issues AS highlighted was organisations took “should” to mean “must” in all circumstances. The Court and EHRC both agreed that should allows for the single sex exceptions to operate in accordance with the law.

The problem isn’t with the EHRC’s guidance anymore as AS had already forced them to change it but with the sort of misinformation you appear to be repeating that has led to service providers getting this wrong.

This is why the OP is right that a huge education effort is needed about what the law actually says.

When the GRA was passed into law, Parliament was told that the group of people this would help was tiny. The estimate was about 5000 people max in the UK would qualify to apply for a GRC. This proved remarkably accurate as here we are not far off 20 years on from the GRA and only around 5000 people have a GRC.

What happened next was that transactivists moved on and started widening out the umbrella. The people with diagnosed gender dysphoria were no longer the only group they wanted to be covered by legal protection against discrimination. They wanted crossdressers, even part-time ones, to get the same legal status, and they added in new terms with no legal definition, such as ace for asexual, pansexual, nonbinary, aromantic, questioning and (unforgivably) intersex, which is a medical catch all name for people with differences of sexual development, i.e. a serious health issue, not a gender identity.

The Equality Act is a flawed piece of legislation because it doesn't clearly define what's meant by gender reassignment, nor does it set out in clear terms the definitions of sex and gender. Consequently, transactivists have tried to claim that single sex exemptions under the EA are not for one biological sex, they're for people of one gender, therefore they cover transwomen as well as biological women (and transmen as well as biological men). I'd be extremely surprised if this is what most MPs thought they were voting for, but even those who did see this coming probably still thought they were dealing with a few thousand people, not half a million or more.

Male people in female-only spaces make women uncomfortable because of safety concerns. This should scarcely need stating.

Violent crimes - perpetrators 80%+ male
Sexual offences - perpetrators 97%+ male

No evidence whatsoever that transwomen don't have a male pattern of offending.

Self-ID means any man can claim to be a transwoman and enter a female-only space, with no safeguards.

Transwomen say they are not safe in male spaces because of male pattern violence. The answer here is to tackle the male pattern violence, not force women to lose some of their basic safeguards.

In answer to the OP, yes, we need extensive re-training, and the sooner the better.

No evidence whatsoever that transwomen don't have a male pattern of offending.

You can be stronger than that.

There's very strong evidence that they are a very long way from a female pattern of offending. The sheer number of sexual and violent cases arising with "transwomen" offenders vastly outstrips the number you'd expect if they had female offending patterns.

Maybe "transwomen" are a tad safer than men (but how would you maintain that if any man can call himself a transwomen?). But they're obviously far, far more dangerous than women.

@Shedbuilder

Some of them haven't, I agree, but some of them have — and IME those who have tend to be the type to pursue it and make a thing of it. These days they're learning at nursery that girls can be boys and vice versa.

Stonewall's guidance for Early Years, written in 2017 by Lucy Rae, doesn't promote the TWAW ideology. It even quotes the Equality Act accurately and includes sex as a protected characteristic.

It does talk briefly about the 'assigned' sex rather than 'observed', but this is their recommendation for a parent expressing concern that their child may be trans:

Staff can:
• Let them know that the key to supporting any child is to celebrate the things that make them different and encourage them to do what they enjoy, without any judgement. When adults create a loving, supportive environment where their child feels valued and understood, a child can reach their full potential.
• Explain that one of the things children explore at a young age is gender: some children, for example, like dressing up and might explore being a ‘boy’ or a ‘girl’ during role play. Highlight that challenging stereotypes alone shouldn’t be taken as an indication that a child is questioning their gender identity.
• Explain that, by contrast, a small minority of young people will truly and strongly feel that they are a different gender than the sex they were assigned at birth. If a child consistently, persistently and insistently identifies as a different gender to the sex they were assigned at birth, they can be directed to support (see below).
• Let them know that it is important not to make assumptions or jump to conclusions about a young child’s gender identity.
This is because labelling young children may prevent them from exploring who they are.
When a child and their family does need support, professional guidance is always beneficial to explore the best way forward for them as individuals. For more information, visit: www.gids.nhs.uk

It doesn't mention Mermaids and it makes the distinction between sex and gender. The booklist at the end promotes acceptance and diversity, not change.

So I do wonder where the "girls can be boys" in some nurseries is coming from.

That's pretty reasonable (and the complete opposite of the Mermaids approach - 'she likes toy dinosaurs? TO THE CLINIC!')

The Equality Act is a flawed piece of legislation because it doesn't clearly define what's meant by gender reassignment,

Yeah, that needs clearing up. They are pretty specific on when the characteristic applies (proposing to, actually undergoing, completed have previously started and ceased etc), but not what it actually is - probably for good reason as absolutely any attempt to specify would either be shouted down as gatekeeping, would fall foul of another characteristic (i.e. surgery not always possible / disability) or would be so broad as to apply to anyone who has ever been a bit gender non-conforming. The original debates around the GRA are really interesting - they pre-empted nearly all of the problems.

TBH I had to check the spelling of Ann's name - how many Ns and Ts? But I admire her very much and hope she & her ilk aren't too fed up of the gender wars and are up for helping with the post-Stonewall cleanup. i.e. bringing policies and guidance back into line with the actual law, before the screenshot brigade come in.

So a person wishing to use the ladies (again the toilet thing - really?) is entitled and protected to do so if they are undergoing or proposing to undergo gender re-assignment. They don't need a certificate or specialist to sign that off. They self id as that.

This isn't true. There are no positive rights granted by the EA for males to use women's single sex spaces. The EA deals with discrimination and harassment, concepts which also apply to the protected characteristic of sex. So women could potentially also make a claim of harassment (depending on the circumstances) if forced to use single sex spaces where they expect privacy with members of the opposite sex.

These issues have not yet been tested in court. The existing case law is patchy.

TBH I had to check the spelling of Ann's name - how many Ns and Ts?

I think it's Ann Sinnott.

There is a difference between getting the number of n and t’s wrong and using a completely different name entirely.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g Yep, that “umbrella” was a turning point, with the inclusion of weekend cross dressers and drag queens. The “Q+” came to mean pretty much anyone.

It would be same as excluding someone from an event as they are not of the racial or class background that you are personally happy with. That is why the equality act exists

I'm afraid that's not the case. Social class is not a protected characteristic, and someone would be perfectly within the law in asking someone to leave an event due to their social class.

Social class seems a bit more materially definable/describable for protection purposes than gender identity. Can be tricky to pin down for lots of reasons but ultimately you can tell when someone is looking down at you for class reasons. If I were reforming the EA, I'd probably bump that up to a protected characteristic, and protect gender-based feelings as a belief (as well as gender-critical beliefs, obviously).

Re self-ID-ing into the toilets (never mind the 'really', this is the first question that crops up when someone is transitioning at work as it directly affects their colleagues) - my understanding is:

If a male with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment WITHOUT a GRC (i.e. a self-IDer) wants to use the ladies, the comparator is a male without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Are all males allowed in the ladies and this one is being excluded? No? No discrimination. It might be discrimination if he were being excluded from the gents because other men are uncomfortable with his attire/makeup.

If a male with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment WITH a GRC wants to use the ladies, the comparator is normally a female, UNLESS an exception applies. Case law is indeed patchy but if an org had a high percentage of religious women who would find toilets shared with a male unusable, for instance, AND a gender-neutral option were also available, that would seem to me a legitimate, proportional and reasonable invocation of the exception. Both get a safe facility they can use. The only thing the GRC-haver doesn't get is close proximity to vulnerable females in a private space, but that's not important to them, is it? They just want to pee.