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.

If they put a wrong sex marker on a document then they have falsified it regardless of their role. And no, I am not 'entertained' by individuals with high levels of responsibility falsifying things at a libby grouos behest.

*lobby groups behest.

@Congressdingo

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?

Pretaxanger has just put up a quote from a judge who thinks no one would ever guess someone was transgender so long as HR didn't tell anyone. The male gait, beard, or exposed penis in the communual changing rooms would offer no clue as to their actual sex...

@Congressdingo

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?

Honestly Congress do I really have to explain?

The poster I was replying to was repeating the joke that men on boards can just tick woman to play the system and meet the quota. This joke was actually quoted as a serious objection by a poster. The poster was suggesting that in the financial reports for investors, (what the consultation is actually about) which frequently shows board members photos, they will publish a table in the same report saying that all the men are women.

Obviously if any of you are of the opinion that the joke was a real scenario, and all the men photographed in last year's report are going to be happy to have a table saying they're all women this year, then obviously I am happy to leave you thinking that.

You can tweet it at the FCA if you like, or say it to your MP?

Pretaxanger has just put up a quote from a judge who thinks no one would ever guess someone was transgender so long as HR didn't tell anyone. The male gait, beard, or exposed penis in the communual changing rooms would offer no clue as to their actual sex...

It doesn't say that anywhere. The judge is talking about the company embarrassing and humiliating the employee by changing the preferred name on shift rota's and worksheets.

The award was 47,000

Come on, you are all such legal experts, at least read the tribunal report before writing rubbish.

My job role means I can contribute to such a consultation through various industry forums however I will not be able to express my views without detriment to me and my company. So i will need to do it via other groups. I am fuming that it is self-identified gender not sex.

@Tibtom

If they put a wrong sex marker on a document then they have falsified it regardless of their role. And no, I am not 'entertained' by individuals with high levels of responsibility falsifying things at a libby grouos behest.

Changing the sex record is the employees choice, not a lobby group. It's completely up to them.

Honestly Congress do I really have to explain?

The poster I was replying to was repeating the joke that men on boards can just tick woman to play the system and meet the quota. This joke was actually quoted as a serious objection by a poster. The poster was suggesting that in the financial reports for investors, (what the consultation is actually about) which frequently shows board members photos, they will publish a table in the same report saying that all the men are women

I dont see the joke in this.
If a company wants to prove its credentials in "gender equality" a very quick and easy way will be to ask some of the men if they feel like a woman. Doesn't need to be all of them, just enough to get to 40%.
This will cost nothing, no one will lose their place on the board, will require no actual action to find women to sit on the board and helpfully for the company nothing need change. If we take pips bunce as the model for this idea, none of the men need to id as a woman full time.
They can still keep their name, dress as they please etc. And if it suits them for whatever purpose, they can use the womens loos too.
I bet there will be a man or two who would be willing.

Replying to
@TheFCA
Is it correct that you are including men who self identify as women in your calculations? Therefore a board with 60% males & 40% men self-identifying as women would be considered to meet the diversity requirement?

Oh no, someone has actually asked the joke question? It was one of you wasn't it?

@congressdingo But surely men would never pretend to be women to take advantage of rules designed to increase the inclusion of females, right?

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/22/mexico-elections-fake-transgender-candidates-disqualified

@Pretaxanger

Pretaxanger has just put up a quote from a judge who thinks no one would ever guess someone was transgender so long as HR didn't tell anyone. The male gait, beard, or exposed penis in the communual changing rooms would offer no clue as to their actual sex...

It doesn't say that anywhere. The judge is talking about the company embarrassing and humiliating the employee by changing the preferred name on shift rota's and worksheets.

The award was 47,000

Come on, you are all such legal experts, at least read the tribunal report before writing rubbish.

“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"

www.holyrood.com/news/view,trans-womens-inclusion-on-gender-balanced-public-boards-ruled-lawful

And we already know Scotland has self Id, well as good as.

@Pretaxanger if its such a silly joke then there can be no objection to the FCA changing their language to avoid any unnecessary hilarity? I would have thought a serious institution such the FCA would be at pains to use language which is clear and understood by all. Maybe they could use the word "female", as defined in the Equality Act 2010. Then everyone who was confused - or tempted to play an amusing joke - could refer to the relevant part of the Act and realise they can't just re-name John Smith, Jane in order to meet the requirements

Changing the sex record is the employees choice, not a lobby group. It's completely up to them

If they intend to use those records to assess compliance with PSED then it is not up to them, if they use them to report the pay gap then it is not up to them, if they use those records as a means of determining equal treatment if employees then it is not up to them. If they use those records in external reports then it is not up to them. The policy has been allowed because of lobby groups campaigns to 'get ahead of the law'.

So what am I reading from you TibTom, that it's the right thing to do, to not use the preferred name, shout out the old name in public meetings and have everyone snigger? It's certainly reading like this is something you are in favour of.

@Tibtom

Changing the sex record is the employees choice, not a lobby group. It's completely up to them

If they intend to use those records to assess compliance with PSED then it is not up to them, if they use them to report the pay gap then it is not up to them, if they use those records as a means of determining equal treatment if employees then it is not up to them. If they use those records in external reports then it is not up to them. The policy has been allowed because of lobby groups campaigns to 'get ahead of the law'.

I'm afraid you are quite wrong TibTom.

Literally no one has suggested that but you but do carry on

It doesn't matter what they use, sex or gender. Employees can tick whichever box they like. Even if it didn't say including those who identify, those who identify would pick the one they want.

So much rage!

Then everyone who was confused - or tempted to play an amusing joke - could refer to the relevant part of the Act and realise they can't just re-name John Smith, Jane in order to meet the requirements

That's such a compelling argument. You must contact the press and Maps immediately to explain.

@Pretaxanger

So what am I reading from you TibTom, that it's the right thing to do, to not use the preferred name, shout out the old name in public meetings and have everyone snigger? It's certainly reading like this is something you are in favour of.

Ha! So what I am reading from you is that I was right in that the judge did seem to think if HR didn't mention it noone would guess and individual was transgender. And even you can't manage to find a way to make this sound reasonable so have stooped to making stuff up.

@Pretaxanger

It doesn't matter what they use, sex or gender. Employees can tick whichever box they like. Even if it didn't say including those who identify, those who identify would pick the one they want.

So much rage!

So you say it's not that hard to become a woman at work, just tick a box and taaaaddddaaaa. Then you bleat on about how hard it is to be trans or something, not sure what the photo comment was about.

I'm afraid you are quite wrong TibTom

In which case I am sure you will have no trouble pointing me to the law which amends the Equality Act in this regard?

Ha! So what I am reading from you is that I was right in that the judge did seem to think if HR didn't mention it noone would guess and individual was transgender. And even you can't manage to find a way to make this sound reasonable so have stooped to making stuff up.

Oh dear.

So you say it's not that hard to become a woman at work, just tick a box and taaaaddddaaaa.
Then you bleat on about how hard it is to be trans or something, not sure what the photo comment was about.

Mmm.

@Tibtom

I'm afraid you are quite wrong TibTom

In which case I am sure you will have no trouble pointing me to the law which amends the Equality Act in this regard?

Are you Alan Henness?