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???

@FlyByNightmare check out Sex matters post on a Twitter. The full motion is there.

To any FDA members reading this and interested in being involved in the next steps re: this motion please get in touch with me 😊

Do you mean the consultation that is going to be carried out as part of putting in place the proposed trans-inclusion policy?

i am hopeful we can be included or at least our views considered. Basically what we do to ensure fda understands our views, the law, and still represents us

Has someone told you that the Exec Committee is going to consult membership on their draft proposed policy once they’ve drafted it? Has that actually been confirmed somewhere?

I can’t recall them consulting membership on anything previously.

Sorry, that question was to aseriesof

I was at the conference, I thought when they were responding to the remission motion they said this was just the start of a process of consultation etc? Not that there’s likely to be a general open consultation of members, but presumably there will be opportunities to input if you actively look for them?

How will members know to “actively look for” these “opportunities to input”? The vast majority of members won’t have a clue that this motion was even put forward at conference. If EC have made any attempt to inform members about the motion, I haven’t seen it.

I don’t think I’ve seen any active comms about any of the motions that were passed. I get the impression things tend to move fairly slowly in the FDA so imagine it may take a while before this piece of work really gets going. I assumed they might consult via branches, diversity networks etc?

“I assumed they might consult via branches, diversity networks etc?”

Which fda diversity networks are these? If you’re familiar with them, could you point me to where to find information on them?

The only FDA diversity network which I can find any evidence of being in place is the LGBT network. It gets a mention on the FDA website. Presumably it’s the LGBT network which lobbied EC to put forward the motion in the first place.

The webpages on BAME, disability and women’s issues don’t include mention of networks for those protected characteristics that I can find. The women’s issues page includes an article by the EC member whose ADC speech gave the strong impression that she would not support women who express discomfort with males in female toilets.

I think I saw something recently about an fda green network but I couldn’t find that on the website.

Like you, the only FDA diversity network I’m aware of is the LGBT network, but I was thinking more of departmental diversity networks - in my department the diversity networks are in touch with branch reps to feed into issues of interest to our members.

So in your Department, your FDA branch rep consults with non-members (via, non-FDA, departmental staff networks) in place of consulting branch members?

How do your branch members feel about that? Are they even aware that’s what is going on?

(Branch reps cannot use the departmental networks to seek out FDA members’ views as, to do that, they would have to disclose to those networks which of the network members are FDA members, which would put the branch res in breach of GDPR.)

And is that what the Exec Committee did when they decided to bring foward this motion, do you know? Did they seek out the views of non-FDA members via various civil service networks, and forget that FDA members pay their (not the cheapest) subscription fees in order for their union to represent them, and not for their union to act on behalf of non-members? I suppose that would explain the stark contrast between the EC motion and the various motions put forward by branches, which was so noticeable at ADC. The branch motions being focused on branch member priorities, such as pay.

What @MaudeYoung said.

similar tactics at UCU had to be abandoned after their legal team confirmed it could be illegal to silence women or take away their rights .

You are clearly much more familiar with the workings of the FDA than I am, so I doubt anything I suggest will be particularly helpful to you.

I’m not aware of our branch formally consulting with the networks - what I had in mind was that on occasion one of the branch reps who is specifically responsible for D&I has come along to our meetings of all network chairs, so they and we can discuss any areas of mutual interest.

I do no know anything about what led to the EC’s trans inclusion policy motion - I was not aware of it until I saw the conference agenda. Interestingly though, in our recent branch meeting, two motions were put forward on trans matters by members - one from a GC perspective (which was rejected) and one in favour of supporting trans colleagues (which was accepted).

aseriesofstillimages

I wouldn’t say I’m more familiar with FDA workings than you. I had no idea branch reps were in the habit of consulting non-members, so that’s something new I’ve learned.

So is your branch already working on its proposed motions for next year’s ADC? Impressive forward planning!

Yes, our situation reminds me of Colin Wright's cartoon:
mobile.twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1423796796854206464/photo/1

He got a lot of flack after Elon Musk retweeted it, despite the fact that Wright has described it as: 'A cartoon I created on August 6th, 2021, documenting the political "journey" I've taken while staying in the same place. The cartoon depicts the political landscape shifting beneath my feet, so that my once moderate left-wing views are now seen as right-wing and problematic.'

Those motions were put forward and debated at our branch meeting prior to conference. Would their purpose have been to try and get them on the agenda for the conference? I thought it was just about setting our branch’s priorities and position, but I may have misunderstood, I’ve not been to conference before this year.

I don’t know. You would need to read the motions and see what the wording says. It should be clear in the wording whether they were giving instructions to your local branch committee or to Executive Committee (HQ). If not, the motions weren’t very well drafted.

I have checked and both motions were just for the branch AGM, they were giving instructions to the branch committee. I was confused because your previous comment suggested that a branch would only be considering motions for the purpose of advancing them at the ADC.