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.

People with a vagina?

I think almost everyone sees the craziness in all this

Dexy, thank you for standing up for women. 💐

I honestly wonder whether we're going to have to name OFAB groups to be permitted to recognise that half the human race are female and 99% of them are happy to name themselves as such, and need services and resources that actually address their reality. The less than 1% of female people who would prefer to be known as something else can be catered for within the equalities or LGBT+ provision if they would prefer this.

Otherwise we're saying half the human race has to be a dirty secret that can't be mentioned or helped, because it might upset the less than 1% of the population who are (or who identify as) male. Which is just plain sexism and illustrates in fact why female people need single sex services.

Thank you, OP, for standing up for women.

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.

Completely accurate. 'Women' is fine, for tras it includes anyone identifying as such. I suppose if they wanted a more specific term they could use 'adult human females'?

The only reason to remove the word 'woman' would be to include transmen or non-binary people, who presumably have specifically stated they don't wish to be included in the women's group?

Jesus, 2022, this is where we are. The word 'woman' is being painted as a fucking dog-whistle, isn't it? Our words must be erased. Our existence must be invisibled and denied.

Awkwardly, we'll still be here, of course, with our inconveniently real bodies that do annoyingly keep on bloody being female, and all those distasteful and really quite uninclusive experiences that we should really shut up about already.

Is there any kind of a group to support the following people, OP:

Chestfeeders.
Vagina havers.
Menstruators.
Birthing parents.
Menopause-experiencers.

Maybe one should be set up?

I honestly wonder whether we're going to have to name OFAB groups to be permitted to recognise that half the human race are female and 99% of them are happy to name themselves as such, and need services and resources that actually address their reality.

I saw someone complaining on Reddit or Twitter that someone at their school/university had set up some sort of group for "AFAB"s and they had a picture of the sign saying "all AFAB people welcome!"

And they were ranting about how transphobic that was, and that they were just trying to figure out ways to exclude transwomen...

Can you get some help with stats from your HR, OP? As pp have said, there are a great deal of issues that effect women only as a result of their biology alone.

Can you model this by way of illustration to show that a separate group is needed that acknowledges the needs and experience of biological females only ? For example take 2 trainees, one male (Jack), one female (Jill) and use your firm's own stats and current equality "performance" to plot their trajectory throughout their 30 - 35 year career at your firm.

Get the stats on your firm in front of you for your next meeting. How many women in partnership, at salary and equity level? How many female heads of practice and in management roles? Get the stats on training contracts awarded to women versus associate, senior associate and partnership roles being awarded over a, say, 10 year trajectory. How does this compare to males?

Biology. A typical female will need to deal with, potentially all or any of the following by dint of her biology:

Workplace sexual harassment;

Being denied work because clients either do not "trust" a female or feel more comfortable with men they can do "bants" with;

Being denied network opportunities, either because these are perceived as male centric activities that a women "wouldn't want to attend" and so are not invited (namely sport) or take place outside working hours when women who are also mothers commonly have childcare responsibilities (can you look at what client schmoozing activities have gone on and who has been invited to attend them?);

Menstruation and life/work limiting gynaecological issue like endometriosis;

Miscarriage;

Fertility issues that disproportionately effect females, in terms of emotional and physical toll - e.g. IVF being required, which will effect the female more even if the fertility issues aren't hers;

Pregnancy, post pregnancy complications and maternity leave;

Childcare responsibilities and carer roles for children with additional needs;

Carer roles for elderly parents - look at the available national stats for which sex is carrying out that burden;

Look at the maternity attrition rates at your firm.

Look at family friendly hours, part time working opportunities etc. Are these readily available?

Look at how many women in your firm go from the fee earning/partnership trajectory to the professional support lawyer roles. How many women versus men end up as PSLs?

Plot Jill's and Jack's likely journey through your firm based on all of the above. Emphasise it's not about sexualities or feelings. It's about biological reality and the way society still expects females to do (and not to do) certain roles and activities. Emphasise that you want your firm to be bucking the national trends of how women are treated - get these colleagues enthused about making your group pioneering in its support of women. But this can't be done if the group needing the help (i.e. biological females) is diluted through unnecessary inclusion (unnecessary because other groups are available) or though the use of off-putting, marginalising terms like "cis" and "identify as".

Oh yes, also go armed with Maya's case - you should not be under threat of being fired for being a GC female, it's a protected characteristic.

Good luck, OP. I know from my own bitter experience that law firms can be the worst.

There is a group for "women and anyone who identifies as a woman" at my work, though I think some men have joined anyway 🙄.
Then they started a subgroup "young women's group" so I peeped over the parapet and posted a slightly snarky comment "I definitely identify as young but sadly the evidence suggests otherwise " and linked to a really good podcast about fertility advising that young women hoping to have a baby some time would find it of great interest. Of course if they look at other podcasts in the series they may find other discussions.....

Oh and don’t forget how women workers deal with clients who are religious types and refuse to shake hands or meet with women staff? Why do you do when a client comes in, looks at you like you have just pood on the floor, refuses to shake hand to talk to you then demands you get a stack of paper cups for him to select one from the middle (that you haven’t infected with your ‘womanness’). And of course they will shake hands, backslap and accept a cup from the men (no matter what they look/dress/act like).

Yeah.

Also, have a few counter arguments to hand to your young colleague thinking none of the above applies to them. If they go down this track, ask them why they think anything will be better for them as women than it has been for their older colleagues? What is their evidence?

Also, ask them whether the "choices" we as women have - e.g., to not fuck up our careers by not having children - are equally applicable to men , e.g. how many men feel that having a child will fuck up their career?

Eg, we can choose not to take 12 months of maternity leave and put our young babies into nursery. But ask them to honestly answer whether they would question a woman doing this, and whether it would even cross their mind to have the same questions for the father in this equation.

Thought of another - what percentage of the marketing budget has ended up in the hands of male colleagues organising events for other males (clients or colleagues)? Has the sex make up of the group eve been questioned by the budgeting committee? Have there been any events that have been women only? If there has been, was the sex make up of the group questioned in that case?