FDA Union debating boundaries of gender critical speech

[HMIT]

twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1524407282859134977?s=21&t=S9tsIUNnxGgfjt8uQYTm6Q

Just spotted this on Twitter. I’m a member of the FDA and wasn’t aware this was on the agenda for this year’s conference. I’m furious that my local union reps haven’t brought this to my attention. How very dare they. If this goes through I’ll be resigning. How very dare they wade so carelessly into this debate.

I thought I was a member of a union that had a sound grip on the issues that affect women.

Where are the sane Trade Unionists???

That proposal is likely to be unlawful in terms of the Equality Act 2010 (protected characteristics of sex and of belief) and in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 (freedom of belief and freedom of speech).

But, but, but.... this is the only way this ideology gets accepted. By silencing all voices who speak about facts, science, biology and free speech. The fact that senior civil servants are pushing this is testament to how important that group are in pushing this ideology through. See the success of the civil servants in the DfE in funding and enabling some of the most unsuitable groups in the world to have access to children and schools.
And now look at the off the scale levels of social contagion in relation to children believing they're the wrong sex.

This is exactly what I thought when I was shown this proposed motion recently. I'm an ex-member of the FDA - now retired - but would be seriously considering whether my future lay as a union member if I was still a Civil Servant.

I gather that the UCU is debating this as well. Not just pro TRA but an active mandate to hunt out witches proposed by Sally Hines. I mean WTF do they think they are doing? Do they seriously want to be sued?

NC for this. I am a civil servant and recently looked into joining the FDA so that I would have some protection if I decided to represent/argue for women's interests at work, in particular because I want to get involved more in D&I. Sounds like it would be a waste of time.

It’s not senior civil servants pushing this though, it’s the executive committee of the union. They’re the ones proposing it. It’s a “be kind” agenda they think they’re pushing. I can’t see many of the membership supporting this stance. We pride ourselves on being politically neutral.

All I can hope is the debate results in the motion not being passed by delegates. Even if I turned up I couldn’t vote because you have to be registered to attend and vote.

I’m so mad that I can’t even discuss this with my local reps because I’m afraid I’ll be branded a bigot in the workplace.

Argh! I’m mad and sad at the same time.

Yes, I suppose if it doesn't pass that is a positive. Maybe.

It’s the kind of thing the EHRC should be aware of- discrimination at the highest level in my opinion.

I'm a member, and wasn't aware either until sex matters posted it this afternoon.

If it passes I will be writing a strongly worded letter* to Dave Penman. It's flagrantly out of line with both the law and the need for a union to represent the workplace rights of all its members.

*I'm such a civil servant

@HMIT I've just checked the full agenda (it's in the members area of the FDA website if you have access) and there are various amendments to the motion proposed, which can be summed up as "delete 90% of the text"

So looks like it's definitely not going to be just nodded through, at least. Well done those amenders...

Had someone told me in 2010 that twelve years later it is the left and the very young and fervent who are pushing for the silencing of opinions and censoring of speech I would have though that the person was suffering from future dysphoria or some similar mental disorder.

Had that same someone told me that I might in twelve years time no longer subscribe to the Guardian, but to the Times instead I would have thought it was a joke.

But these two things happened and my politics did not change.

Can anyone update? Was this motion passed? 🙏

There’s nothing on Twitter. I’m resigned to having to resign’

Several members of the Executive Committee spoke in favour of the motion.

Several members of the Executive Committee spoke against the amendment.

At least two members of the Executive Committee spoke against agreeing to a remission motion (in advance of it being proposed), which one Delegate (not on the EC) had indicated they wanted to propose. (The remission motion would have remitted the motion back to the EC to have another look at the wording, but supporting the spirit of the motion. )

It was clear that a number of members of EC had a strong personal commitment to the motion and referenced experiences of family members.

In fact, apart from one young delegate, who spoke about the pain caused to them in the workplace by being misgendered despite advertising their pronouns, the arguments deployed all seemed to focus on accounts about friends and family experiences/views and about what any self respecting union ought to be doing these days.

Two delegates (representing both sides as it were) from the branch which proposed the amendment spoke about how, following a vigorous and difficult debate in the branch, they had proposed the amendment to seek to address some of the problem wording and find a milder version of the wording (one a gay man concerned about his trans friends and the other delegate trying to accommodate all the different members’ views in that branch). That attempt was scuppered by the amendment deleting a particular sentence which all delegates considered should be retained. Two other delegates one male one female also spoke in favour of the amendment. The male referenced this week’s AB tribunal and said we are all here [on the planet not at conference!] because of the same thing ie male gamete and female gamete, and we all have a mother.

It became apparent that the EC had lined up a number of EC members to speak in favour of the motion and sway conference.

One delegate proposed a remission motion saying that while there was obvious support for the intention behind the motion, the wording wasn’t quite there yet, and the amendment wasn’t quite right either, so could EC look again at the wording, for example what did EC mean by trans exclusionary language - would mention of breastfeeding and workplace breastfeeding facilities count as trans exclusionary for example?

The delegate who seconded the remission motion said he had concerns about the wording around “boundaries” and that only being applied to the gender critical view, which would predominantly affect women.

Delegates have a maximum of two minutes and can only speak once, which means you can’t have any form of thoughtful, complex, nuanced discussion or actual interchange of ideas on a topic like this, all you get is appeals to emotion and questionable assertions which go unchallenged.

If you like a bingo card, “rights aren’t pie” and “it’s not true that there are only two sexes” and “some people are intersex” all made an appearance

First vote was the remission motion which got rejected.

Next vote was the amendment, which was rejected.

Next vote was the motion, which was approved.

Just to clarify, it wasn’t just EC members who spoke in favour of the motion, some delegates did too. Several delegates spoke against the amendment because of one sentence it deleted.

I felt like that initially, but watching it all unfold what struck me was that 99% of ordinary branch members don’t have a clue what happens at ADC or at EC or how to get elected onto EC and under normal circumstances wouldn’t care and under normal circumstances it wouldn’t matter because ordinarily FDA has a laser like focus on its members shared interests and concerns (albeit not much interest in female only concerns I admit).

The other thing that struck me was the very strong contrast between the motions proposed by branches during the rest of the day which were all about members’ experiences and members’ priorities, and the EC motion which was all “we can’t not have a position on this” and accounts of experiences of family members, who, if they are not FDA members, it is not the FDA’s job to represent.

The FDA Reps training is very clear that the first question you ask yourself when asked for FDA help is “is this colleague a member?”.

If you don’t know who “your” EC member is, ask your branch secretary or convenor to find out for you, and ask them to attend a branch meeting to talk about the work of EC, how to ensure that branch members have the chance to feed in their views on EC discussions, and the voting arrangements for getting onto EC. You could ask your branch rep if the motion means that FDA will now be adopting the UCU approach to member support.

Thanks for the comprehensive update @CannaeSay.
It’s very disappointing but not surprising, under the circumstances you set out. I think 99% of people in general that words like breastfeeding, or things like support for single-sex spaces, might be offensive and unsayable.
I had held out some foolish hope that FDA members might be more in touch with the debate/nodebate, and it sounds like some are - I’m glad people spoke up; even if it ended up here.
Thanks again for the update.

If possible, could the wording of the motion passed be posted here? Thanks

Thank you CannaeSay. I bet it was a difficult experience for you so thank you for recounting it.

Thanks for the advice. I’ll certainly look into
it.

Thanks hugely for the update, CannaeSay.

I know what you mean about 99% of people not engaged with it. Still bloody furious though. I'm very glad it didn't go undebated or unopposed, but FFS...

Personally I'm not going to resign, I'm going to sound out my FDA rep first and then will write to the exec committee and Dave Penman.

Guessing Sex Matters will be raising it with the FDA as well? Would hope so, as part of their advocacy work

Oh, and I don't know if you know them/are them, but if you do/are, please pass on huge thanks to the people who spoke against it. That takes courage and as a member I'm extremely grateful

Does this mean the union's official position is that they will withhold help/support from anyone who is accused of 'trans exclusionary language'?

How is anyone to advocate for women's rights under the equality act when there is discussion of workplace policies? Some people would consider the equality act to be trans exclusionary, because it allows people with the pc of gr to be excluded from spaces for the gender they identify as. Surely some members will be responsible for single sex services/spaces for the public, recruiting for roles where one sex can be stipulated etc. They will need to advocate for using the exceptions if they thinks it's necessary. Is that trans exclusionary language?

This union is making some services less usable for women, but making the people who manage them afraid to set out why they think they need to lawfully discriminate.

If you are a member, write to your branch convenor / branch secretary to ask them that question, and if they can’t answer, ask them to write to the Chair of EC requesting clarification.

Echoing this, thank you. (Also FDA, in a still-Stonewalled department.)

This is on Twitter