That GC grenade that I chucked at work...

[CraggyIslandTouristBoard]

I previously posted how I sent a long anonymous email to my work (London law firm), querying their transitioning policy. In particular, the fact that it would allow a male colleague who decides to transition immediately to use the women's toilets, showers and changing rooms. (Unfortunately my thread was deleted as MN weren't happy that I had set up a new account to post it, and also I referred to 'trans identifying males' which is terminology not allowed by MN, just FYI).

I asked if they had done an equality impact assessment to consider the impact on women generally (and also women from particular backgrounds, and female survivors of domestic abuse and sexual assault). I also asked them if they would publicly confirm that anyone who harassed someone for expressing respectful GC views would be dealt with according to the firm's disciplinary policy (the transitioning policy says anyone harassing someone because they are transgender would be disciplined). I included lots of links/references to the Equality Act, the EAT judgment in Forstater, EHRC guidance etc, questioned the appropriateness of following Stonewall advice etc.

I submitted the question to be answered in the annual firmwide forum, which is taking place this week, and which allows people to submit questions to senior management.

In the meantime I have had the below response from our head of D&I (who on the whole I like and respect, but we are signed up to the Stonewall Diversity Bllcks so that respect only goes so far...)

"We carry out a rolling review of our policies. This one has not been looked at since November 2020 and it is therefore due for a fresh review.

I will make sure that it is included in the next round of reviews that we undertake. We recognise that this conversation has evolved since then, and is continuing to evolve, and we will take the points you have raised into consideration in the course of our review.

I am sorry to hear that you felt you could not raise these issues other than on an anonymous basis.

I can assure you that there is no intention to prioritise one set of views over another and if, at some point in the future, you feel that you might be comfortable to have a confidential conversation with me to discuss your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me."

Hats off to them for managing to turn it into a bit of a damp squib. 🙄But I will keep a beady eye and if they have done nothing within the next 3 months I will start agitating again. Ditto if they come up with some crap along the lines that they will deal with the question of which toilet etc facilities can be used by a transitioning person on a case by case basis (the most cowardly way to fudge it, no transparency at all). I'm hoping in the meantime we might get something helpful about what a sh*t shower Stonewall are in the Allison Bailey ET ruling, though I've no idea when that's expected.

And at the forum meeting this week my prediction is they'll just summarise the question, say they are reviewing the policy and move on, but I will let you know!

Hi @Circumferences , yes I do believe the firm will answer the question at the forum. I'd say it's 50/50 whether they read out my short question in full or if they just summarise it and say, eg, "We've had a question about whether the firm's transitioning policy reflects the current legal position, and in particular whether it takes into account the needs of women at the firm. The policy is now three years old and we do plan to review it and consider whether it needs any amending or updating".

@Madcats I'm afraid it doesn't surprise me at all that it's not been updated - like many policies and other internal docs that are drafted, stuck up on our intranet and then forgotten about.

Which is not an excuse here when there has been a clear change/clarification of the law from the EAT decision in Forstater and the EHRC guidance, and we are (for f's sake!) a law firm with fully fledged D&I and HR departments as well as lawyers who are meant to be experts in, er, employment law!

The wider (but less important) takeaway for the firm is that they need more systematically/regularly to review all our policies. Even the Law Society (which as any solicitor will tell you is a total shower) managed to update its own policy on single sex spaces last summer, although it is still pretty feeble. Depressingly, though, it's still a big improvement on the "Budge up for the boys and let's ignore the law!!!" policy which the Law Soc had in place previously.

Best of luck with your training contract @TessaSmith , and I'm sorry to say you are absolutely right to be very careful about expressing any GC views openly. I feel hopeful that the tide will turn but I don't know if we are there yet (or that it will ever turn enough...).

If you've not already come across it you might want to check out the Legal Feminist website.

Good news that your firm has seemingly ditched Stonewall - we are still captured to that extent, though I feel fortunate we've neither gone down the email pronoun route - yet - (and if they try it I will not keep my objections anonymous), nor the rainbow flagging virtue signalling on our social media pages. Though on that note I do feel quite sad because I've been a gay ally for decades and no longer feel able to get involved in the same way as previously, with the concerted campaign by Stonewall and others to make it All About The Trans.

Another point to chuck in, perhaps (not that your letter isn’t comprehensive and well reasoned!) is whether they have considered impact of the policy on autistic members of staff or others with disabilities. My DS is autistic and the nebulous concepts of gender identity, choosing own pronouns etc are really tough for him to get his head round, literal concrete thinker that he is. I worry about whether all this will make the world of work even harder for him to navigate

Tiptop work there, Craggy. Thank you for daring. I do hope you keep the pressure up.

That is a brilliant letter! Thorough, clear while being appropriately nuanced, and well-substantiated.

If you are honestly so lazy or incapable of reading and comprehending the issues for women any deeper than this bit of pointless, silly dogma, then you really might as well not bother. You're embarrassing yourself. And if TW are not capable of either listening to, understanding or caring about what women have repeatedly, endlessly explained about their issues then no, they have no business whatsoever in female spaces.

That letter is excellent, thank you for sharing it!

Superb letter 👏

Great letter op. Missed it first time around but reading it now, it reminded me that it might also be worth having the name of Phillip/Pip Dibdob** to hand as a way of furthering the questions and understanding of the situation, as some days he identifies as a man and others as a trans woman - so no getting into discussions about whether or not someone is 'real' because obviously part of the time Phillip/Pip is not.

** Can't remember his surname but hopefully others here will; seem to remember he got listed as one of the 100 Women of the Year in the City (or similar) a couple of years ago, which didn't go down well here. But as they are high profile and in the city, but not in your firm, they could provide a useful additional discussion point!

Bunce.

Brilliantly put, Renegade!

Well done OP. I recently had a conversation at work with someone about equality data and he said "we're collecting data about men and women but of course that could change" and I said "well frankly, I hope not" and he smiled and said quite.

@Katypyee

Thanks @RenegadeMatron well said!!

Not invested in other people's genitals at all, that would TRA's who constantly bring up genitals and the idea of a genital police.

Invested in the SEX people are, the one they are born and can NEVER change no matter what cosmetic, chemical or surgical alterations they do or don't make. Absolutely NOTHING stopping transwomen from peeing, there are perfect readily available facilities for them - they are the ones that align with their SEX - the Mens/Male options, piece of piss really.

Spaces and services that are designated on the basis of SEX to remain that way, that's what I am invested in.

If genitals are irrelevant that why don't trans people just pee in the correct sex bathroom ?

I'm so pleased you started this thread @CraggyIslandTouristBoard. I had wondered why your last one disappeared. I think your letter is excellent. Fingers crossed for the town hall - and beyond. Looking forward to the update.

+1

Fantastic work, Go Craggy!!

Thanks all.

So, the town hall took place today. They had had a lot of questions on a lot of subjects - many they just lumped together and dealt with in the round. The head of D&I spoke about a couple of things (mainly D&I targets they've set themselves including on the mahoosive "gender" gap in the partnership - wonder how the stats would look if a male partner decided to transition..? 🤔)

Then she came onto my question which she summarised to the extent of making it virtually meaningless: "We've had a question about the firm's transitioning policy, it is quite topical and I will be reviewing it. If anyone has any thoughts on it do contact me and I'll be back in touch when I've had a chance to review it and will keep you informed of how that develops."

I actually suspect a sizeable chunk of the firm won't even know what the "transitioning policy" is and won't ever have read it. But hopefully the ears of any GC colleagues may just have pricked up...

I don't doubt they will do some kind of review and probably make some tweaks, but as long as we're still in thrall to Stonewall I'm not sure how much hope I hold out. (That said, we've not totally bought into the Stonewall dogma - no email pronouns, no virtue signalling rainbow flags, our eg maternity policy does refer to mothers and the like, so you never know).

I think for now I'm going to give it a couple of months to wait and see what they come up with, and will then consider agitating further.

In the meantime I've been lobbying my MP (2 emails and a DM on twitter and still no replies! Apparently she thinks it's fine for convicted male-bodied rapists to be moved to women's prisons). I am also looking at doing some stirring against law firm Reed Smith which is disgracefully acting on a pro bono basis for Survivors Network Brighton in the case brought against it by rape victim Sarah (for those who aren't familiar with it, Sarah is a victim of child sexual abuse and then rape as an adult, and is suing Survivors Network for discrimination for refusing to provide a women-only support group - she was forced to share her experiences in front of a male-bodied attendee of a women's group who had the choice of attending a trans group and/or a man's group). So the campaign continues!

I will update you with any developments at work....

Thanks for the update, Craggy - fingers crossed for a good outcome in due course.

Good for your work for doing everything they can to make trans people feel comfortable when they transition. That is a very stressful time for them and I'm sure having such a supportive work environment will help enormously. 😍

(Gently) you’re missing the point here. The concern is for the erosion of women’s rights and the silencing of women around these issues. I’m sure you support Sarah’s fight against SN? The issues are more complex than just #bekind.

No, they are deliberately missing the point to make another one, and being really, really creepy about it.

Ah well hopefully that poster will return to clarify they weren’t being creepy and underhand and in fact do support women’s rights and acknowledge that a great deal of trans activism is aggressively misogynistic…

You know it isn't the job of female people to make trans people feel comfortable at their own expense? It's not the birthright of females to put male people first.

You do also know that female people need access to loos too? Including the disabled ones, the traumatised ones, the survivors of DV and DA, the ones with cultures and faiths that mean they can't access mixed spaces? And that it isn't the job of females to lose access to any facility so that a trans person can feel really comfortable choosing from all the facilities? That's going to be pretty stressful for those females isn't it? Should the TW spare any reciprocal care and consideration for them, or is it a sex based 'female people should put male people first' thing?