FCA Diversity consultation

[Nojobforoldmums]

Not sure if anyone has seen this
www.fca.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/cp21-24-diversity-inclusion-company-boards-executive-committees

References to gender, may or may not be intended to mean sex. Is this on the radar of the usual groups to ensure monitoring sex doesn't get dropped in favour of gender identity?

Apologies for a plop and run thread.

Yeah except we’ve been on this toad before

“No one would think it’s ok to let a man self ID as a woman play women’s rugby”

“No one would is going to let a man self ID as a woman compete as a woman against women in the Olympics”

“No one is going to give business women prizes to men who occasionally dress as a woman”

“No one would let a man self ID as a woman proclaim themselves a lesbian & then employ them to go into schools to talk about how they’re pushing the boundaries of what a woman is”

Women have been told repeatedly that they’re paranoid/ridiculous/it never happens and that they’re silly

And yet here we are so funnily enough especially given the close ties between stonewall and the FCA I have no intention of giving them the benefit of the doubt

Road not toad!! Though toad riding could be a thing 😆

Pretaxanger,

Do you think your language "silly" "nonsense" "waffling" is a tad patronising.

The FCA is a hugely powerful organisation. It has had a number of links with Stonewall over a number of years and continues to do so. Indeed a few years back Mermaids was their charity of the year.

You may have missed the recent debate. You may also think that clarity of language and protecting sex based rights are not important.

I hope though, that you can accept other people have different views and simply don't understand why the FCA chooses not to employ terminology used in the relevant legislation.

@BuffysBigSister

It may be silly to think companies would all self-identify as women but according to the language in the consultation document they wouldn't be doing anything wrong if they did. Surely the FCA should be precise in its use of language to avoid any doubt.

So what are the statistical odds in a regulated financial services company having a board and exec committee of transwomen?

Assuming you know any thing about the City?

Surely the FCA should be precise in its use of language to avoid any doubt.

What is the actual doubt? Please explain.

I have worked in investment banking for over 20 years, including 10 years on a trading floor in the City. I want to know what the FCA means by "self identifying as a woman". How would you prove that you fulfilled that requirement? Wearing a dress to work? Make-up? Changing your name from John to Jane? Self ID is not (yet) UK law. Sex is the protected characteristic in UK law. Equality Act 2010 defines the protected characteristic of sex as adult human female/adult human male. No mention of self identifying.

Do you think your language "silly" "nonsense" "waffling" is a tad patronising.

No, I think it's accurate.

@Pretaxanger

You miss the point. When those men they are being compared to ID as women then what?

Are you suggesting that an employer is going to search the organisation for someone out as trans and wedge them into every sex discrimination case whether involved or not as proof of.....well proof of what, that the woman's male manager didn't discriminate in opportunities or promotion because there's someone trans in another department?

Oh! How tangled that became.

You seem to be determined to ridicule the discussion, fair enough. But it would be helpful if you could do so without tripping over those 'things that never happen' that have already happened.

Just shrugging and moving on to another thing that never happens just seems pointless.

Pretax - as you well know, the issue is that the FCA no longer monitors diversity by sex. Like other Stonewall Misogny Champions, it is ceasing to record sex data and instead only self-identified gender. This is despite the Equality Act being based on sex, and despite the government deciding against self-id.

Like other Stonewalled companies, covert lobbying is smuggling in change by the back door and without a parliamentary vote.

I hope though, that you can accept other people have different views and simply don't understand why the FCA chooses not to employ terminology used in the relevant legislation.

Employers are compliant with the law by allowing sex to be changed in records.

This consultation is not going to reverse this by demanding that employees do something other than that which they are legally entitled to do.

"So what are the statistical odds in a regulated financial services company having a board and exec committee of transwomen?"

If a board has one senior board member who is a transwoman it has met the brief, with no female representation. If an average board of 10 has 1 transwoman member, it only requires 3 women to meet the criteria. Further to count women have to effectively publicly assert they identify as a female identity.

I am not sure about how odds come in to this. The targets for females are pointless if they are not restricted to counting females. I have no issue with a transwoman on the board, but it does not address the issue of representation of the sex which gestates young.

it is ceasing to record sex data and instead only self-identified gender.

Yes, which is legal.

This is despite the Equality Act being based on sex, and despite the government deciding against self-id

The gender recognition act does not govern employee records.

You seem to be determined to ridicule the discussion, fair enough. But it would be helpful if you could do so without tripping over those 'things that never happen' that have already happened.

If I am ridiculing any thing it's the barrack room lawyers who write misleading posts here.

Why are you talking about the gender recognition act? We’re talking about the equality act

The targets for females are pointless if they are not restricted to counting females

Pointless? All the work done for women shared by the FCA is pointless? Have you read any of it?

The arguments seem to be sliding all over the place, with legal assertions and a bit of statistics thrown in.

If the consolation is about diversity, in particular women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. why not say women, ie adult human female.

Or is that too silly, too waffling, and too nonsense for the wokey-blokeys at the FCA and their allies.

My understanding is that diversity initiatives at the FCA are increasingly focussed on the T. And that previously good initiatives, like support for disabled, and help for women, especially those from minorities, to break through are now much less talked about.

@Theeyeballsinthesky

Why are you talking about the gender recognition act? We’re talking about the equality act

I quoted a poster mentioning the government deciding against "self ID".

What the government hasn't done is disallow identity document changes. This was not an outcome of the consultation on gender recognition certificates.
There seems to be an assumption that the GRC requirements are connected to employment records. They are not.

The GRC isn't relevant to this consultation. It's already possible to change your passport and employment records without a GRC.

And as the ICO found when they went to court over it, that isn't compliant with the need to collect data disaggregated by sex.

If the consolation is about diversity, in particular women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. why not say women, ie adult human female.

Because employees have a choice over their sex/gender and ethnicity records.

There's occupational exemptions where relevant, sitting on a board in the city is definitely not one of them.

The Equality Act protected characteristic is "sex" not gender. MTF trans people are only legally female if they have a GRC, all others are male. This should and will be challenged.

And as the ICO found when they went to court over it, that isn't compliant with the need to collect data disaggregated by sex.

FCA employers are not conducting a census. The reasons for aligning with employment records, which are a matter of individual choice, are not the same reasons it was judged as necessary for the ICO to disaggregate by sex.

@Pretaxanger

The targets for females are pointless if they are not restricted to counting females

Pointless? All the work done for women shared by the FCA is pointless? Have you read any of it?

Not following your logic, sorry.

Obviously if the FCA is trying to achieve greater market stability by ensuring that there is significant board representation of those who identify with what their personal understanding of what it means to be a woman then this is not pointless, as it is what they have chosen to measure and set targets on.

I am disappointed they have not chosen to measure and set targets against those of the female sex.

I am however, not convinced either really address their strategic or operational objectives.

If the government had brought in self ID then males would be legally female just by saying so. But that is not the case. That is why it is relevant. The fact that some ID documents are falsified with the incorrect sex marker with a doctor's note may be the FCA criteria, but it doesn't meet the criteria for the Equality Act protected characteristic of female sex, and the need to collect accurate data.

The FCA is a government quango, they have public sector equality duty.

it was judged as necessary for the ICO to disaggregate by sex.

It was judged necessary because they need to collect sex based data as per the EA, not a hybrid category they made up which is different for different organisations. Exactly the same Equality legislation applies.