Seeking advice - work want to change the name of the Women's Committee

[Dexy007]

Our workplace (big national law firm) has a women's network. I won't name it for obvious reasons but the name of it includes "Women".

The firm alreayd has an LGBTQIA+ society and an equality and diversity committee.

At a recent committee meeting one of the young committee members suggested our objectives might need updated to be more inclusive. A few people voiced that this would be a good project. I am GC (privately) and inserted myself into the task force to try and bring some balance to the process.

The objectives basically say (again I won't be specific so as not to be outing) that the committee's objectives are to champion women and their achievements and to encourage women to develop their professional network inside and outside the firm.

As you would expect from an 'older' objectives statement (not drafted in the last 2~years) there is no reference to gender, sex, and so on. It just basically says by women for women, everyone welcome incl. men.

The two younger members of the committee and I had our first 'sub-committee' chat. I said (in terms): "I have given this a lot of thought and have tried various wording in my head and I am afraid I can't think of anything better than what we have already. As transwomen are women [NB not my personal literal view], what is the point in saying 'Women incl. transwomen'. That would be 'othering' and may be hurtful. We are going to tie ourselves in knots trying to define woman and whatever definition we use, it will miss out a class of woman who will feel excluded, or will offend someone by using a term someone doesn't agree with. Many people, for example, are offended by the term cis-gender. [NB: this was met with genuine surprise by my colleagues]. If someone is a woman, they will know the committee is aimed at them, and if they are not then they will know they are still welcome anyway because we clearly say it is open to everyone, including men."

My colleagues suggested "People who identify as women" and I said "but what are our invites going to say - an event run by and for people who identify as women, open to everyone including people who identify as men? That is very silly and in that case why aren't we just saying "our events are for human beings"?

We had to call time on it but when we next speak, what subtle and objectively inoffensive arguments can i raise in our next meeting?

I need to (appear to be) Switzerland in this situation, and while I would love to say what I really feel, I will be fired.

As this is a law firm, surely the very basics are understood, they know sex is a protected characteristic right?

If they mention the cis word again, maybe mention that if they refer to cis-women, then they have to refer to cis-men, to make all things equal (and I image most men won’t understand this at all).

Cis is not a common term in the wider community either. I once asked around, no-one knew it’s meaning. I wouldn’t have done if it wasn’t for mn.

Doesn't changing the terms of this network to reflect gender-diversity duplicate the work/roles/objectives of the other two societies?

Wouldn't trying to define the specific nature of every woman welcomed by this society in order not to offend, actually increase the risk of offending someone, eg 'cis' women or left-handed women?

You already have company organisations that represent women, which focus on gender diversity and sexuality. Surely true diversity and equality would be having an organisation that focuses on other aspects of being a woman.

Not that I suggest using my wording. I think it's wordy and convoluted. But it's incredibly difficult being apparently neutral while actually trying to support women!

As it’s a law form perca-os they should stick to the legal definition of women?

Perhaps!

Would making it a group for legally protected characteristics be an option? I think that being a law firm should give you much more ability to respect the law and abide by legal definitions than other workplaces

This happened at my work 2 years ago and there was initial support for changing the name to be more inclusive. I was the only person who objected and said no one would dream of changing the name of the LGBT network or disabled network to make others feel more included. That gained some support- I think people were just afraid to speak out.

They later sent out a poll asking opinions and have never updated us on the results, just seem to have quietly dropped the idea.

Of suggest to look at the aims of the group. Outline the reasons for it - it’s not to step on the toes of the LGBetc group.

It is to help and support women who have had disadvantages growing up as a girl (with societal and educational expectations) and young women who have walked into interviews with a disadvantage of being born a girl. NOT because of feelings about themselves of someone woolly definition of gender. Not because of mental struggles they have had growing up because they ‘felt different’.

Maybe they need reminding about the education status of girls in other countries. The careers of women which is often disrupted for ‘caring’ burdens that usually falls to the women in a family. The health issues that befall women.

All - biology - not feelings. The LGBetc can address those who do not qualify. Maybe they should set up their own group to address their own unique issues.

If they had a ‘black or Asian lawyers’ group would they dare say ‘if you identify’ as black or Asian (or a lawyer)? No they wouldn’t! So to say ‘identify as’ (or the dreaded C word - is insulting). So why can they pretend they don’t understand the legal definition of the word women?

Good luck. I’d be telling them to get their heads out of their arses.

Lawyers are pretty bad for this utter nonsense - I’m not quite sure why.

Sorry I do know - clients ask at their discovery don’t they?

I was asked what our policies were for some pitches (not in legal) and I only had 8 pages of this to complete (and, oh it was correct, very very correct).

Well done inserting yourself into the task force OP and giving colleagues food for thought. Some good advice already upthread and I have none to offer but this paper, which is aimed at medical situations is quite wide ranging so you may find some helpful arguments in it.

internal-journal.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856/full?fbclid=IwAR1GmMyg9yC58i3SargXSSpsw1NgaVoD6raB8cz40YuEgx9VxFTr5A4m4OQ

And point out that women scrutinise anything tagged ‘woman’ to check if it is single sex or not - and avoid if it doesn’t fit the brief.

Well said, Kittenkong. Stick to biology, let the other groups deal with the feelingz.

You could opt for 'female empowerment group'? Seeing as the word Woman is being muddied by use by persons who are not female?

Ask why they specifically think a group for women, that already welcomes men, needs to be more 'inclusive'.

Point out that there are already other societies that are set up for other groups that aren't being questioned.

Also point out that sex is a protected characteristic and that women's groups are set up to support women who are often disadvantaged in the workplace due to their sex.

Most women do not 'identify as' women.

Tell them adding 'cis' is forcing a minority religious belief of gender ideology.

How do we keep this group's distinctive purpose, to ensure it doesn't tread on the toes of other groups and so it continues to fulfil its own aims?

How do we ensure women from conservative religious backgrounds are able to access the support they may need to stay in the workplace?

Given the number of women who have experienced sexual assault, some of them in the work place, how do we ensure they have safe spaces to discuss their needs?

How do we indicate all that through the name?

When the needs of people who are not women are brought up- 'what about the men'- suggest the other groups for that purpose, or one be set up for that group.

Why do you have to be neutral? The Forstater case set a precedent for gender critical beliefs to be expressed.

Inclusive: “woman’s network. Everyone welcome”.

How many other networks/societies are there? Does the LGBT etc network also say “everyone welcome”? Or is it not inclusive of non LGBT etc people?if or why not? And if not, why os the woman’s network explicitly under consideration for different inclusivity language when it already includes non- women?

I'm also in a large law firm and just waiting for this BS to start.

Maybe suggest going back to first principles and look at why a women's network was created in the first place? Because women are woefully underrepresented in the upper echelons of law firms. The falling off in numbers happens after the childbearing years. There is lots of published data to support this. In most firms women still only make up around 20-something percent of the partnership despite being at least 50% of the junior intake. Are trans women being disadvantaged in their careers by having children? Is there data showing that trans women are underrepresented at senior levels compared to numbers entering the profession? If not it might show the needs of the two groups are different (because ovaries - but you might not want to add that) and are not best represented by a women's network.

Isn't the whole point of a "group" that it isn't inclusive? If everyone was included, it wouldn't be a group, would it? It would just be the whole staff...

So this isn't about "inclusion", it's about changing the terms of reference. If they're suggesting changing the terms of reference of the group currently for female staff, then the onus is on them to justify that being female no longer merits having a group focussed on you.

Ffs, can't have anything, can we?! Lots of good suggestions here. Thank you and well done for taking up the challenge.

The so-called women's group already includes everyone, how can it possibly be more inclusive?! I think this is virtue signalling, pure and simple. Young people who have had Stonewalled educations demonstrating that they believe in the one true god.

Good luck op

Christ. My former employer had a women's network which was rebadged as a gender network. Pissed me right off. Do genders need to network? Lots of women gave it up at that point so it became a pointless club.

I would rebut the identification bit by asking what about women who don't specifically identify as women (perhaps because like many they have never spent time thinking about it) but are categorically women and subject to the particular pressures that brings. Doesn't your network want to serve those women?

Maybe consider the issues that may be run as special advice groups.

Pregnancy and maternity leave
Time off /flexible working for child/elder care
Menopause
‘Womens’ health issues
Charity work for, say a miscarriage charity or ovarian cancer charity
Toxic masculinity in the workplace and why men have the assumption that they can ‘talk over the little lady’ in the room
Sexual harassment…

Then ask - women or people?

I'd mention mission creep and the necessity of ensuring that core brief isn't lost in a lot of good intentions.

There is an equality group.
There is an LGBT+ group.

Female humans still exist, and need representation too for sex based challenges even if they and those sex based challenges have become dirty words. So is this big national law firm wanting to sweep the female half of the human race and specifically sex based challenges under the rug and focus on something nicer and more fashionable? Are they saying that females aren't enough to justify a committee? Are they unsure that the LGBT+/equalities committees aren't doing enough or need more help or they should merge? Are they concerned that to recognise female humans and specific law issues to them is in some way a threat to others? Who are those others? What are the threats?

Thank you so much everyone these points are great and fill the brief so well.

I love the argument - do we want to send a signal that being born into the female sex is no longer a specific and prevalent issue and is of a nature that can now just be rolled up with other equalities committees?