Advice please! Sex vs Gender in work training module

[Pixilicious]

Hi all, I've stuck me head above the parpet at work and challenged the use of Gender in place of sex in some D&I learning that has been rolled out. I've been asked to comment on the following scenario and want to go back with a suggestion of how this could be worded better - suggestions please:

"What I would encourage you to do next time is consider that football is a sport for all, and that gender equality is a human right. Your conversation in the office can be heard by others outside of your group that would consider your comments offensive and discriminatory."

Is gender equality a human right? If so defined by who? and is equality based on sex also a human right?

@Datun oh they know I’m not all for sexism

@CatherinaJTV

when trans women transition, their salaries adjust to the female side of the gender pay gap

Do you have stats and references for that?

One of my main concerns with the assumption that trans woman can just be swapped in to anything originally set up based on sex with no detriment to the pre-existing female group is the lack of evidence that trans women's social outcomes are significantly more like female people than male.

I also wonder whether this is individual or population level. It's rare for an individual's salary to drop unless they change jobs (though I can see that transition might be a time for other life changes as well) so I was wondering if it's individual trans women losing earning power when they transition or a cohort of low paid trans women offsetting higher paid ones.

Any evidence out there that supports the belief that trans women and female people are socially / statistically interchangeable would be very beneficial and reassuring.

She just meant move. They move from one column to the other

@Fitt

She just meant move. They move from one column to the other

That's a shame. Would have been really good to get some solid evidence for the gender ideology assertion that female people and trans women are interchangeable. What CJTV is actually telling us is that we've (in the sense of not we at all, but someone else deciding for us) decided to adulterate yet another marker of sex equality progress (or not) without any idea of the impact on the efficacy of said marker. Sigh.

In the UK, 15.49 million women aged 16+ were in employment in October-December 2020

A quick search brings up this interesting paper. We do know the impact is probably .2 to .3%. Spread across all occupations the impact below 1% is not detectable in the published charts the way they are formatted.

There is no gender pay gap for under 40s UK wide any more.
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06838/SN06838.pdf

We do know the impact is probably .2 to .3%.

Do we? How?

(Gender pay gap gone for under 40s but significance is whether that goes up the age range as the current under 40s cohort ages or if the over 40s gap persists ie women continue to suffer lack of economic power in middle age most likely due to burden of career gaps for child raising not shared equally with fathers.)

That's the ONS estimated percentage of the population that is trans.

The report actually states that there are two reasons, in addition to the one you mention the second is the lower opportunity for education attainment of older women which is still affecting the gap over 40.
Interesting the report shows only 800,000 more women than currently inactive due to families or home responsibilities.

The impact of time out is changing over time.

More women than men..

That's the ONS estimated percentage of the population that is trans.

Do you have a reference for that? I had a brief google and the references I found from the ONS says they do not estimate, but I could not find anything from 2021 so perhaps that has changed. Stonewall suggest 1%.

The report actually states that there are two reasons, in addition to the one you mention the second is the lower opportunity for education attainment of older women which is still affecting the gap over 40.

Well yes, that's why I said significance is whether that goes up the age range as the current under 40s cohort ages or if the over 40s gap persists. Because that will show how much is down to the education of a specific cohort and how much is down to structural social inequality.

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721642/GEO-LGBT-factsheet.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiyxoTh6ZryAhXZgVwKHXlOCVcQFnoECAoQAg&usg=AOvVaw1XJ7jpJnviPJonDLRAktyK&cshid=1628199031157" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721642/GEO-LGBT-factsheet.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiyxoTh6ZryAhXZgVwKHXlOCVcQFnoECAoQAg&usg=AOvVaw1XJ7jpJnviPJonDLRAktyK&cshid=1628199031157

I think Stonewall exaggerate based on the apparent popularity of non binary and the rest of the terms, and they are not actually relevant to the pay data in the report upthread.

If you look at figure 3 on this page linked below it shows the downward trendline by age group.

There is an uptick for over 60s following the pension age change which affected that cohort.

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/genderpaygapintheuk/2019

Ah ok, I did find that but assumed you had something else because (1) that's not an ONS estimate, it's a "tentative" estimate from the Government Equalities Office, and (2) It's from 2018.
From the doc: "How many trans people are there? We don’t know. No robust data on the UK trans
population exists. We tentatively estimate that there are
approximately 200,000-500,000 trans people in the UK.
The Office for National Statistics is researching whether
and how to develop a population estimate."

I think Stonewall exaggerate based on the apparent popularity of non binary and the rest of the terms, and they are not actually relevant to the pay data in the report upthread.

How do you know? I mean, how do you know under what gender this maybe 1% is being classified WRT gender pay gap if it's self-id?

Is this about blokey conversation about football all over the place

Or something else

What's the context OP?

In 2015 GIRES gave the figure of 600k to the Trans Equality Inquiry, this was based on extrapolation of 1% of the population being "gender incongruent" which came from an earlier study. This has been generally used by the government.

How do you know? I mean, how do you know under what gender this maybe 1% is being classified WRT gender pay gap if it's self-id?

Feel free to do your own maths.

A certain lawyer in their book has written:

Accurate figures are hard to come by, but a good estimate of the numbers of trans individuals in the population might be between one in two thousand to one in five thousand of the UK population.

So roughly between 13,500 and 34,000 people.

I used the word probably in my impact statement upthread precisely because there's only estimates.
Synonyms, antonyms, idiomatic expressions, and related words for probably, like: presumably, most likely, apparently, doubtfully, reasonably, imaginably, questionably, possibly, definitely, guess and seemingly.

You said "without any idea", however it is possible to have some idea.

Estimates of gender incongruence clearly don't translate to the GPG as non binary is a youth movement in the main and there isn't a pay gap under 40, and a passport change or documentation is needed to change the record which means the oft quoted Phillip Bunce whose own admission is non binary is unlikely to have a female passport etc, along with many other men that have a similar approach to life.

Please note words such as in the main, and unlikely. I've made no claims to certainty, only that we can and do have some idea, and in my opinion the impact is undetectable in reporting.

@Fitt

How do you know? I mean, how do you know under what gender this maybe 1% is being classified WRT gender pay gap if it's self-id?

Feel free to do your own maths.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I am highlighting there is only an assumption, based on extrapolation of numbers of different populations gathered for different purposes at different times, that there are not going to be enough people reporting under their trans gender to make a difference. No one is collecting data in the gender pay reporting that could test that.

Furthermore my concern was not whether trans women have a negligible impact when added to the other all population. It's whether the trans woman and female populations are statistically interchangeable, which is very different. If TWAW and should be treated the same in all circumstances I would expect that evidence to exist. Otherwise, we are giving TW support based on solutions for female problems not TW problems, and in doing so we are taking away single sex female support that is known to be valuable for erroneous reasons.

Bugger.... "other all population" in my last post should have read "female population"

No one is collecting data in the gender pay reporting that could test that

Sure, good thing it is correctly called the gender pay gap then.

If TWAW and should be treated the same in all circumstance

So if you find that claim made by anyone you can ask them.

It's whether the trans woman and female populations are statistically interchangeable, which is very different.

The way companies are expected to report a GPG literally means females are all treated as statistically interchangeable, despite the many different factors influencing their pay over time. It is by design a high level indicator of representation and pretty useless really for any thing else. Most majority office based job companies will by default have a gender pay gap simply because less men in lower pay grades work in offices than in skilled trades. The UK wide data is the only realistic measure and fortunately they do break it down by historical age cohorts and occupation type.

So the gender pay gap is not a good example of a complaint about statistical interchangeability.

@Fitt

No one is collecting data in the gender pay reporting that could test that

Sure, good thing it is correctly called the gender pay gap then.

I don't think I complained about that did I? I asked if there was evidence that TW pay is in line with the "man" side of the GPG before transition and "woman" after which a PP appeared to be saying.

It turns out that what they were actually saying is TW are counted on the man side before and the woman side answer, which means the answer to my question is "in theory yes, but that's because in transitioning they move their own data point over so the goalposts move to meet them, but in practice we don't think there have been enough to make a difference to date, and we aren't tracking it so the only we we will only know they weren't is to see the shift after it happens"

You seem to be arguing against a different point to the one I'm actually making. I don't care whether the GPG includes TW or not, what I care about is the general lack of transparency into the differences and similarities between female and trans woman population. I mentioned it in the context of GPG only because a post suggested there might be relevant data available but it turned out to be a misreading of their statement.

Apologies for making different points. I will never do it again.

Gender equality is not a human right because gender is a social construct.

The legal wording is 'sex' and that is the basis for discrimination.

@Fitt

Apologies for making different points. I will never do it again.

Please make any points you want! I assumed you quoted me because you were responding to mine hence a bit confused by the tack you'd taken. But all clear now.