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.

@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!

Women are naturally experiencing high levels of righteous anger as they recognise that once again, their rights are being removed by men.

Many men appear to enjoy goading women into expressing that wholly understandable feeling. They are deeply unpleasant, but unfortunately women have to put up with them. As always, some abusive men enjoy wielding whatever power over women they can.

[quote Pretaxanger]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[/quote]
What does this have to do with the price of fish? Or rules about board members on UK listed companies?

I kind of get your agenda , but I don't think the subject matter is your area of expertise.

Well there is always Alan Henness to give you advice! He can tweet at them about his demands that trans people must be re-categorised against their wishes by the poor employee who completes the reporting.

Good luck with that!

Those poor employees who identify as the CEO getting recatorgarised against their wishes? What nonsense!

What about the pregnant women getting recatogarised are 'sacked'?

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

Are you deliberately being obtuse? The point is the FCA as a public sector organisation need to ensure their PSED by collecting accurate data in line with the Equality Act.

trans people must be re-categorised against their wishes

I wish to be re categorised as 21. I trust that's ok as it's not my wish to be categorised as my actual age.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

trans people must be re-categorised against their wishes

I wish to be re categorised as 21. I trust that's ok as it's not my wish to be categorised as my actual age.

You could certainly give it a go. I suspect it might cause problems with your tax and NI records though but give it a try.

Name and gender changes are already possible.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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

Are you deliberately being obtuse? The point is the FCA as a public sector organisation need to ensure their PSED by collecting accurate data in line with the Equality Act.

No I'm not being obtuse, I'm simply pointing out that the employer record of the sex of an employee is their choice. And the same goes for monitoring within recruiting or otherwise of sex or gender. Calling it gender in monitoring makes no difference, people will put down what they want. So from a PSED we already know that it's an employee choice, the government knows, lawyers know, HR know, HMRC know and obviously the FCA know.

So unless Alan Henness and his fanclub team of barrack room lawyers have a plan for how in practice employers are going to override this employee choice data (which they have no need or desire to do), you are kinda stuffed.

I notice he continues to write embarrassing long tweets at people.

He's tweeted at one org who has gender on their recruitment monitoring form with his killer legal argument that you can't keep this without their permission. Which is a bit embarrassing as the optional data collection process does obtain their permission. Duh!

And that's just the begining of his thread.

How embarrassing if that's the gender critical legal front line!

www.gov.uk/employers-responsibilities-equality-monitoring

Oh dear look, it says gender. What will Alan say!

How embarrassing if that's the gender critical legal front line! Yeah! Imagine actually being able to understand the ramifications of, how did you put it, the accurate recording of sex being entirely optional!

Maybe you need to have a look beyond your own belly button and see what those things that never happen cause when they do actually happen!

See headlines like "My brother died of ovarian cancer" for example!

See headlines like "My brother died of ovarian cancer" for example!

How does a UK employee record impact that case?

@Pretaxanger

See headlines like "My brother died of ovarian cancer" for example!

How does a UK employee record impact that case?

Nice try!

You aren't that naive... are you?

Is that an explanation of how an employee record prevents cancer deaths?

Walk us through the steps, or it's another far fetched claim.

So unless Alan Henness and his fanclub team of barrack room lawyers have a plan for how in practice employers are going to override this employee choice data (which they have no need or desire to do), you are kinda stuffed.

It's not about Alan Henness, organisations monitoring by self identified "gender" (not a legal category) are not following the EA, like the ONS, who were also smug and complacent that they didn't have to, until they weren't. And Stonewall weren't much help to them then.

You do seem to have quite a fixation on poor Alan, and have closely followed what he does? Odd, when I imagine most people have never heard of him.

Oh dear look, it says gender. What will Alan say!

That the rot has thoroughly set in in the public sector, which we know, does not mean this would necessarily stand up in court. As the ONS found.

His work was posted and cited here as legal advice in support so I read it. His Twitter was linked so I read it.

That's how it works here....

The credibility of his information is up for review on that basis as it's being quoted here as serious legal advice.

His approach to companies on Twitter is rather amusing.

How embarrassing if that's the gender critical legal front line!

It isn't. Look up Legal Feminist. Also excellent GC barristers such as Anya Palmer, one of Maya Forstater's barristers. And Joanna Cherry, about to defend Marion Millar in Scotland.

You could certainly give it a go. I suspect it might cause problems with your tax and NI records though but give it a try.

Just highlighting the absurdity of your pearl clutching about trans people "being recategorised against their wishes". We don't always get to have what we wish for. If this loophole was closed, that's exactly what would happen.

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.

Yes I can imagine. There's a reason that this is the focus of most diversity activity at the moment. It's easy, lazy, box ticking.

Just highlighting the absurdity of your pearl clutching about trans people "being recategorised against their wishes". We don't always get to have what we wish for. If this loophole was closed, that's exactly what would happen.

Oh classic mumsnet! Pearl clutching!

Is the reverse true, that board members and exec committee members are obligated to give you what you want, to tick a monitoring box that isn't consistent with their employment records, payslips, passport etc.?

What is the process you expect to be in place to enforce this?

I don't know, that's up to them. I'm sure most large companies have people on six figure salaries whose job it would be. It's not "what I want" it's to enable them to avoid inadvertently discriminating against the female (or male) sex class, and providing inaccurate monitoring data. Like health and safety, often they wouldn't get pulled up on it until something bad happened and they were legally challenged.

Self ID "gender" does not map to the legal category of sex for the purpose of equality legislation.

But we're just going round and round here, despite the patronising bluster, you clearly don't understand public sector equality duty or the difference between gender identity and legal sex, so I'll leave it there.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

How embarrassing if that's the gender critical legal front line!

It isn't. Look up Legal Feminist. Also excellent GC barristers such as Anya Palmer, one of Maya Forstater's barristers. And Joanna Cherry, about to defend Marion Millar in Scotland.

Yes, there's occupational and services exemptions which can be used.

I've read Maya's page on the workplace. It's the same muddled up anxiety about people having a choice over their records and allusions to a blanket negative impact.

The Equality Act doesn't allow for a blanket negative impact reading.

There's a "proportionate" clause in the Act isn't there.

In an Equality Impact Analysis the FCA have likely determined that for office desk jobs on Executive Committees and Boards they are being proportionate.

With ONS estimates of about 0.3 to 0.5 percent of the UK population being trans, if this monitoring captures 10,000 board level office workers, then 9,500 to 9,700 have not changed their records. I expect that is over counting the actual representation.

So is there a proportionate and legitimate aim there that's covered by the Equality Act? An occupational requirement?

You can FOI the FCA for their Equality Impact Analysis.

it's to enable them to avoid inadvertently discriminating against the female (or male) sex class,

Ok so if I'm blustering and don't understand, then you should be able to give a concrete example of inadvertently discriminating against the female (or male) sex class on Boards and Executive Committees?

@Pretaxanger

it's to enable them to avoid inadvertently discriminating against the female (or male) sex class,

Ok so if I'm blustering and don't understand, then you should be able to give a concrete example of inadvertently discriminating against the female (or male) sex class on Boards and Executive Committees?

Well that really does show a complete lack of understanding of the whole issue and an ignorance of sex discrimination. I actually can't believe you need to ask for this. How embarassing for you.

I'm asking the people that are insisting it's discrimination to go beyond the assertion and describe a case that could be brought against the FCA?

I'm not embarrassed! I think it would be very useful for everyone to understand what the actual claim that can be made is, don't you? People are writing to the FCA to object and so I'm sure they will benefit from clarity when they do, unless you disagree with that?

They have already paid lawyers to review the proposal so I can see a need to have a robust counter argument, that's not embarrassing is it?