HSBC advert: gender should never be a barrier to opportunity

[InvisibleDragon]

Came across a billboard with this HSBC advertising campaign on it the other day (see the picture - not the billboard I saw, but a similar image from facebook). Was initially mildly irritated at the continued conflation of sex and gender.

But then I noticed something else. In this case, "gender" isn't being used as a euphemism for "sex", it means gender identity.

The people in the images are both (presumably) non-binary men or trans women and the web page links to details about how to change your bank account to have gender neutral title:
www.hsbc.co.uk/opportunity/

www.hsbc.co.uk/help/banking-made-easy/change-of-gender/

I have no issue with HSBC wanting to make life easier for people with a non-binary gender identity (presumably you can also be addressed as Reverend or Rabbi in line with other beliefs). But I really don't like the use of "gender" to mean just the state of having a non-binary / trans gender identity. This feels like a further step in making it harder to name women as a (sex) class. First we had gender as a euphemism for sex. Then we had gender meaning basically gender identity or sex as preferred. This advert is using gender to mean "minority gender identity." (i.e. trans or non binary) Combined with the taboo around naming biological sex as a sex class, this feels concerning.

I'm now also side-eyeing the euphemism "gender based violence," which is becoming increasingly popular in Scotland as a replacement for "violence against women and girls."

Have I gone full tin-foil hat here, or is this worth taking notice of?

It might be easier if we just did away with titles. I've always been puzzled that they are often a required field and never satisfied with any reason given for that requirement.

I wonder what's new? Pipps Bunce is already proof that banks can be very accepting to men of both genders.

I'm now also side-eyeing the euphemism "gender based violence," which is becoming increasingly popular in Scotland as a replacement for "violence against women and girls."

Have I gone full tin-foil hat here, or is this worth taking notice of?

Worth attention.

It's sneakily effective isn't it? "There's a big problem of gender based violence" refers to violence against women and girls but presented in a way so as to be understood to be violence against certain people because of their gender identities. Which is possibly a very rare occurrence. Talk about appropriation.

I've thought this for a while.

It started with the Stonewall-led misquoting of the equality act, with 'sex' being replaced by 'gender' and 'gender reassignment' by 'gender identity'. So instead of two distinct and obviously different protected characteristics (sex and gender reassignment) we had, two that appeared to be the same, or very similar (gender and gender identity).

The end game seemed to me to be to replace the two current protected characteristics with 'gender' or 'gender identity', removing sex altogether and also removing any suggestion that changing 'gender' should involve any physical changes to the body, as is implied by the term 'gender reassignment'.

We need to keep fighting against this.

We need to keep fighting against this.

We do. It's deeply embedded, though. For instance, I'm watching a work webcast about Anti-Bullying Week at the very moment. The Head of EDI had a slide that listed "Sex" as a protected characteristic. However, later on in his presentation he said "Gender" instead.

@nauticant

I wonder what's new? Pipps Bunce is already proof that banks can be very accepting to men of both genders.

This. All evidence points to male bodied people getting ahead in life in the UK, regardless of gender ID.

The day I take any organisation seriously on caring about trans people is the day I see them admitting that the biggest threat globally to transwomen is the sex industry. But they can't because they've been sold a thought package that includes the promotion of sex work as well as TWAW. Almost as if the whole thing has fuck all to do with transexuals and rather a lot to do with keeping women down.

For me, what's new is that:

• HSBC now has an option to use a title like"Mx" if desired (not so exciting)
• In their campaign to publicize this, they are using "gender" to mean exclusively "minority gender identity" rather than the more usual "gender identity or sex as preferred". That seems to me to be a further development that makes it increasingly harder to refer to women as a group (at all!) let alone women as a sex class.

@OldCrone

I've thought this for a while.

It started with the Stonewall-led misquoting of the equality act, with 'sex' being replaced by 'gender' and 'gender reassignment' by 'gender identity'. So instead of two distinct and obviously different protected characteristics (sex and gender reassignment) we had, two that appeared to be the same, or very similar (gender and gender identity).

The end game seemed to me to be to replace the two current protected characteristics with 'gender' or 'gender identity', removing sex altogether and also removing any suggestion that changing 'gender' should involve any physical changes to the body, as is implied by the term 'gender reassignment'.

We need to keep fighting against this.

Yes, this is exactly how I see it.

Is what you are saying that first, we moved away from man and woman being descriptors of sex and towards them being descriptors of gender, but that this advert seems to be moving away from man and woman as gender classes being important and towards cis and trans being the most important dividing line?

It's more gaslighting really isn't it.

A campaign "Gender identity should never be a barrier to opportunity" yes, great, no problems here. Of course it shouldn't.

What they've done is make it really vague, knowing most people conflate gender/sex.

They're basically pretending they're trying to improve sex based oppression but they're not.

They're trying to disguise a move to actively increase sex based oppression- by pretending it doesn't exist or matter, in a costume that looks to many like they're working to reduce it.

I see some signs our legislators (some MPs, some peers) are waking up to the need for clarity in language and referring to sex.

It's unfortunate that 'gender' as straightforward alternative to 'sex' has been broken. A phrase such as 'gender based violence' doesn't translate well to 'sex based violence as that sounds more like sexual violence than violence committed predominantly by one sex on the other. Similarly with the 'gender pay gap'.

Anyone seen HSBC's equality statement on UK job adverts?

So many things they don't discriminate against (which can only be positive). Though some interesting omissions from the list...

Link from here hsbc.taleo.net/careersection/external/joblist.ftl#

Nellodee

Essentially yes, that's what I'm concerned about.

Gender was first used as a euphemism for sex (eg Ruth Bader Ginsberg discussing gender equality). It was also used academically to refer to learned behaviours and cultural stereotypes associated with each sex, to distinguish from innate biological differences.

Then we had Stonewall saying that gender identity was more important than biological sex and everything got a bit confused. "Female gender" was often used where people meant "female sex," but was also used to mean "people who identify as female". Things got blurred, because most of us were used to gender basically meaning biological sex, but there was a fairly covert push for it to mean "gender (self) identity" in practice - so that trans women were always grouped with biological women.

Now, HSBC is using "gender" to refer to non-cis people. So the central divider of privilege is now placed between cis people (of any sex) and trans / non binary / gender queer people. But using the same term that we are used to seeing for sex discrimination, which makes it hard to name and challenge what has happened.

the web page links to details about how to change your bank account to have gender neutral title
Funny because I wanted to change my bank account to the gender neutral “Dr Magistera” and they wouldn’t let me! They said I had to make an appointment and provide written evidence of my eligibility to use that title.

@MostNamesAreTaken

Anyone seen HSBC's equality statement on UK job adverts?

So many things they don't discriminate against (which can only be positive). Though some interesting omissions from the list...

I love that the role advertised is 'Barnsley or Sheffield based', but they can't just refer to UK law.

Meanwhile

gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/Employer/4PgmMjgy/2020

I'm now also side-eyeing the euphemism "gender based violence," which is becoming increasingly popular in Scotland as a replacement for "violence against women and girls

Yep.
I had a very similar conversation with a lovely lady from Christian Aid who wanted me to donate to their gender justice campaign.

I wanted clarity who exactly it was it intended to help, because women are oppressed by their sex, not by wearing skirts and having long hair. Encouragingly she said she'd had a number if people say the same thing.

But if helping people of a certain sex is the whole basis of your campaign, get off the fucking fence with your inaccurate, fluffy language and say it.

Do you think anyone involved with this advert* - there must have been umpteen meetings about if and someone must have signed it off - would be able to articulate what they mean by "gender"?

*Or anyone else, I'm not fussy.

In their campaign to publicize this, they are using "gender" to mean exclusively "minority gender identity" rather than the more usual "gender identity or sex as preferred". That seems to me to be a further development that makes it increasingly harder to refer to women as a group (at all!) let alone women as a sex class.

I wouldn't have a problem with that actually - if "gender" was increasingly seen to be specifically talking about genderologist's "gender identity" concept or gender expression, so we had to start clearly saying "sex" to talk about male-vs-female issues, then that would surely be ideal?

This seems like it's drawing the gender-is-not-a-synonym-for-sex line.

And that's what we're seeing in Lords debates - every time someone tries to use "gender", someone immediately points out "what, this thing that comes in 100 varieties including moongender? You mean sex, don't you?".

And that's what we're seeing in Lords debates - every time someone tries to use "gender", someone immediately points out "what, this thing that comes in 100 varieties including moongender? You mean sex, don't you?".

I've started doing this in my (much humbler) real life too, asking "do you mean sex?" (The answer is usually yes.)

Yes Errol quite right.

People started to use gender in place of sex to mean which type of human you are, when people shortened "sexual intercourse" to "sex".

In early English we had
"sexual intercourse" the act,
"sex" the state of being one human or the other,
"Gender" referring to grammatical inflections, and masculine or feminine traits.

When, by the 20th century, "sex" replaced "sexual intercourse" our language got a bit weird when discussing non-intercourse related matters. Gender was a suitable replacement.

Now a mad ideology has come along, which is encroaching on words not limited to "sex/gender" which have evolved over time, but "man" and "woman" as nouns. These words are being completely eroded of all meaning. "Gender" is being misused. "Sex" too. Words like "violence," are being misused.

I don't think any words are safe from this movement.

We really need to fight against it.

Years ago I would have said gender instead of sex, because sex is a rude word and gender is more polite. The two words meant the same. But nowadays they are different words - sex is biological reality and gender is how you feel. Imo a lot of people haven’t realised this and are still using the two words interchangeably.

Now, I sort of agree that we should say sex when we mean biological sex, rather than using a euphemism - and the comments in the HoL sound very positive.

However, I think there is still a value to separating innate biological differences from stereotypes / learned differences. If we talk about the sex pay gap it encourages us to see disparities as innate and fixed. If we talk about the gender pay gap, it reminds us to consider the wider structural and cultural barriers that women face.

I mean as you say gender and sex used to be the exact same thing, then feminists campaigned to change that and now I guess trans are campaigning to change it from what feminists changed it too? What makes one right and the other wrong? The world doesn’t just stop when your particular group has changed words to the meanings they like best.

Although to be honest if men or women only want to hire their own gender I couldn’t really be arsed about it if they’ve started the company or whatever. Why should I care if the nail salon would rather not hire the bearded bodybuilder or some men’s soccer club won’t have women administrators? Who gives a shit, it’s all gone too far.