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.

What the government hasn't done is disallow identity document changes.

I think it should, but it doesn't make self ID males legally female.

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.

That is not what it says. It say women (including those that self identify). It does not say only those that self identify.

"Women including those who self identify" isn't a category of person for the purposes of the EA, and doesn't create sex disagreggated data.

Because males are only female under the EA if they have a GRC. So any public sector organisation who lumps female people together with a group of males in their monitoring is not providing data in line with their PSED.

Stonewall is a lobbying organisation. There is something circular about the Chair of Trustees of a lobbying organisation holding a senior position in an organisation responsible for supervising possibly our major industry, and then that organisation putting out a consultation which might effectively deliver some of the the lobbying organisations objectives.

Indeed.

"That is not what it says. It say women (including those that self identify). It does not say only those that self identify."

Do you consider AFAB who record themselves as women as "women" rather than "self identified women"? I assumed self identified women was a sex neutral term. Surely AFAB have to actively identify as women, otherwise you are assuming their gender? Just trying to follow the logic of this line of thinking.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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.

They have conducted an Equality Analysis.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

"Women including those who self identify" isn't a category of person for the purposes of the EA, and doesn't create sex disagreggated data.

The EA does not create an obligation to capture sex disaggregated data in all circumstances.

They have conducted an Equality Analysis.

Which will be inaccurate because they aren't using the legal definition of woman.

Surely AFAB have to actively identify as women, otherwise you are assuming their gender? Just trying to follow the logic of this line of thinking.

The question does not say that.

They have conducted an Equality Analysis.

And included some men in the category “women”.

Which is illogical, given that sex has been shown over many years to have an effect on employment. It also makes their figures unreliable.

But you do you! Obviously you think men who claim they are women are more important than women. Unfortunately, as is very apparent here, the inequality between men and women is once again swinging the favour of men and people like you are obviously very happy for women’s rights to be removed.

I wonder if it’s like the equality analysis that bristol, North Somerset & south Gloucestershire CCG did which said that there was no impact at all on women in allowing men who self ID as women into women only wards. Something they grudgingly changed their minds about after 18 months of solid work from women pointing out that their equality impact assessment was crap

Given that the chair of stonewall is exec director of strategy & competition at the FCA, I’m not inclined to think that their equality analysis is going to be entirely without stonewall influence

They have conducted an Equality Analysis.

Who is the "they" here. And what did the equality analysis entail?

Was it Meg-John Barker conducting a voluntary staff workshop or something more indepth?

The EA does not create an obligation to capture sex disaggregated data in all circumstances.

They are a public body, not a private company, so they have a greater obligation to ensure in their policy setting that they do not discriminate against any of the nine protected characteristics.

They are not using the legal definition of woman/man, so they are unable to perform PSED accurately and may be discriminating. The points pp have raised about their poor treatment of working mothers are relevant, and may point to indirect discrimination against the female sex.

When public authorities carry out their functions, the Equality Act says they must have due regard or think about the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who don’t
• foster or encourage good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who don’t
Having due regard means public authorities must consciously consider or think about the need to do the three things set out in the public sector equality duty. It's the courts who decide if a public authority has done enough to comply with the duty.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/public-sector-equality-duty/what-s-the-public-sector-equality-duty/

But you do you! Obviously you think men who claim they are women are more important than women.

Where have I said that?

Why is it that when someone tries to counter outlandish claims which are the equivalent of an actual published cartoon joke about men identifying as women on boards and an insistence that women can no longer bring sex discrimination claims which is demonstrably nonsense, they are assumed to think this? I'm simply trying to dispell harmful misinformation. Do you think it's a positive thing to do, to tell women that they can no longer make claims of sex discrimination? How is that a good thing?

I've said repeatedly that there are important issues relating to sex exemptions and occupational exemptions which quite clearly say when actual sex can take precedence, and I have explained that the existing data records employers have are a matter of choice, I've also exhorted people to read the excellent analytics that the FCA have reported on, which goes back years, covering the old 30 percent target which is now being increased to 40 percent.

By all means focus on the outrage that there may be someone on a board that is trans if that's your priority but don't assume the motives of any one trying to explain the context and pull up on the unnecessary hyperbole.

Actually, that is a pointless request here. The hatred for women in HR is a given on this board. That's despite the FCA and partners reporting showing how successful women have been in HR. I will leave you to your rage about the word gender.

Avoiding the derail.

For those of us of have concerns about the proposal, what can be done?

Is anyone able to make the usual women's rights groups aware of this?

Given the FCA is answerable to HMT is it worth writing to MPs?

Are their any journalists who would pick it up?

This appears to be a proposed introduction of self Identification into regulation, out of step with the law.

As an aside, even were this action to be for women, I am not convinced it's a good idea, but I didn't want this thread to be about the merits/challenges of representation quotas.

@Nojobforoldmums

Avoiding the derail.

For those of us of have concerns about the proposal, what can be done?

Is anyone able to make the usual women's rights groups aware of this?

Given the FCA is answerable to HMT is it worth writing to MPs?

Are their any journalists who would pick it up?

This appears to be a proposed introduction of self Identification into regulation, out of step with the law.

As an aside, even were this action to be for women, I am not convinced it's a good idea, but I didn't want this thread to be about the merits/challenges of representation quotas.

I have sent a query to FCA directly asking them to clarify their definition of women for the purposes of the consultation. I have also tweeted about it and tagged in Sex Matters and others. The FCA have a post on the consultation on their own Twitter feed if anyone else wants to respond

Thanks BuffysBigSister. I am not on other social media so couldn't tweet.

I have also tweeted about it and tagged in Sex Matters and others. The FCA have a post on the consultation on their own Twitter feed if anyone else wants to respond

Thank you BuffysBigSister. Did you tag in the Baroness? If not, I can try to get in touch with her.

@AnyOldPrion

I have also tweeted about it and tagged in Sex Matters and others. The FCA have a post on the consultation on their own Twitter feed if anyone else wants to respond

Thank you BuffysBigSister. Did you tag in the Baroness? If not, I can try to get in touch with her.

I did not, that only occurred to me later. I was rage-tweeting

I did not, that only occurred to me later. I was rage-tweeting

Completely understandable!

I’ll try to contact her, though I’m currently keeping my head down on Twitter..

www.personneltoday.com/hr/primark-transgender-discrimination/

Judge Lewis said: “All this may well have been prevented had there been proper systems from the outset to preserve confidentiality for transgender employees. We find it shocking that the respondents could not devise a way of keeping the claimant’s legal name off the core allocation sheets and out of the knowledge of her supervisors.

“The respondents ought to have been able to devise a system whereby only one or two people in HR and payroll were aware of the claimant’s transgender status.”

The employment tribunal recommended that by 31 March Primark should:

adopt a written policy on how to deal with new or existing staff who are transgender or who wish to undergo gender reassignment
include a reference to the existence of a policy of confidentiality in regard to transgender new starters in training materials for managers
amend the materials used for equality training of staff, management and HR to include, if not already there, references to transgender discrimination

“The respondents ought to have been able to devise a system whereby only one or two people in HR and payroll were aware of the claimant’s transgender status.”

I presume they would also require the member of staff to work from home? You only need to see someone to be aware. And while it may not have affected this particular role (no idea what it was) this would also be a safeguarding risk as well as potentially discriminating against women.

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.

I'm entertained by the idea that you are going to accuse FCA Approved Persons in controlled functions' and senior management functions of falsifying ID documents. That will go down well.

www.fca.org.uk/firms/approved-persons

The suggestion that boards will identify wholesale as women to manipulate their company reports to the FCA (which will also be published in financial reports where there's invariably photos of board members) is silly

What do photos have to do with this?
So a man who thinks he is a woman or self ids as a woman will look like a man, like pips bunce, Alex Drummond, etc etc. Not sure what it matters, if a person says they are a woman then who are you to judge if they pass?