I objected to gender ideology at work and now need support

[Hotfeetcoldfeet]

First post but been reading the feminist board for a while. I don’t have any GC support IRL and thought this would be a good place to find some hopefully.

I work in the public sector and have recently seen snippets of Diversity and Inclusion material which will soon be published and widely distributed to staff. I’ve raised concerns to the senior leader who has produced this material as it seems to uncritically put forward a gender ideology view, via language used (eg cis gender women) and resources positing gender ideology.

I’ve contacted them and said that I think that the material presents gender ideology uncritically, as fact, rather than presenting it as an opinion /belief. I’ve said that my GC views are protected by the Equalities Act and should be presented alongside gender ideology, in order to give balance. I’ve said I’m happy to share my GC views with them. Ultimately, I’m worried about gender ideology being accepted by staff in my workplace as fact. Pronouns in email signatures are creeping in and the person to whom I’ve objected has their pronouns stated. They’ve said they’ll raise my issue higher up the chain, which I’m seeing as positive.

I’m probably catastrophising but I’m worrying about putting my head above the parapet, as it’s not something I usually do. I would value any wise words you can give me, and also if there are any resources or anything anyone can think of that might help my case, I’d be hugely grateful. I’ll be reading about the issues in a more targeted way now, in order to be prepared if I get the chance to discuss my GC views further.

Thanks so much in advance

I work in HR and have used the approach of referring to any GC stuff in the news to have a 'hey what do you think of this' approach to test the water and appear to 'consider' the GC view without outing myself as GC, I'm aiming to appear as a neutral fence sitter.

I've Hopefully opened a few eyes with the maya ruling and suggested inclusion = all views discussed respectfully etc which got some agreement

OP could you consider this approach as it will allow you to suss out who is open to a different viewpoint without putting yourself fully out there.

Well done for speaking out. I did listen to a very prominent GC woman recently who said that sometimes you can do more WITHIN your organisation than out of it. So sometimes going completely against everything isn't the way forward. It's so difficult because you only get respect if you comply a certain amount.

Having said all of that, I'd maybe do the bare minimum of what is expected of you (you could try not doing things and see if anyone says anything, e.g. ignore this request to put pronouns in your email signature). Then continue to have conversations where you question the logic. I suppose when it comes to it, it depends how strongly you feel?

Maya Forstater has helped us so much, so do remind your employers gently if you need to that your beliefs are protected by law. Hope this helps!?

It’s admirable that you’re prepared to stand your ground on this. If you get pushback on including GC views in their official materials, then I’d widen the scope.

If it’s about D&I, what focus do they apply to making the workplace inclusive or attractive to the disabled? Or for BAME colleagues? How much awareness do they raise about adjusting for the effects of the menopause on female staff? Or mental health for everyone?

One would hope that these sorts of issues, which are likely to impact on a much wider pool of your colleagues, would have greater focus placed on them than pronouns and gender ideology.

Hello again. A little update from me. I’ve just had another conversation with one of my Seniors about our D and I literature. The literature notes that JK Rowling’s views are wrong and hurtful and TWAW and there is to be no debate on this. I noted that I felt this message was preventing my freedom of expression and that my GC beliefs are protected under the law. However my senior said that TWAW is a factually correct statement due to the gender recognition act giving legal status to TW.

Im going to speak so someone else and see if I can get a different response and I’m trying to find allies within my organisation - found one so far! I’m going to send them some stuff re Alison Bailey and Maya Forstater as I’m so rubbish at explaining it in the moment as I get stressed and can’t explain what I want to say. Plus all the legal stuff baffles me a bit, esp the gender recognition act…. I’m just feeling a bit deflated with it.

Transwomen are only legally women if they hold a gender recognition certificate. That makes them legally recognised as women, a legal fiction created to be kind to the old fashioned sort of transwoman that had all the available surgery and wanted to "pass". Factually, they remain male whatever their legal status is. Even a gender recognition certificate doesn't require them to be "treated as a woman" in all circumstances, if there is a need for single sex services to exclude them eg excluding them from single sex rape crisis services.

Ah thank you. So if someone has a GRC, which I understand only v few people do nowadays, can they still legally be excluded from some female only services? ie not legally be required to be ‘treated as a woman’? Is it the GEnder Recognition Act I need to read to understand this bit?

Equality act I think - which gives sone examples of where sex not gender matters

Hi OP.

Trans women are only considered women as a matter of law if they hold a GRC. Only about 5000 GRCs have ever been issued, so it is safe to assume that most of the people your colleague is referring to when they talk about trans women are not legally considered women.

The Equality Act recognises the legitimacy of single sex spaces and permits organisations to exclude even people with a GRC from single sex spaces in certain limited circumstances. It does not give people without a GRC the right to use single sex spaces for the opposite sex at all. Obviously there is a difference between what the law says and what is actually happening in practice.

I would also point out that sex is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, whereas gender identity is not. You cannot protect what you cannot define. You could ask your colleague what language she thinks we should be using when we want to refer to people by sex, not gender. The term "cis women" doesn't do the job as it excludes female people who identify as trans men or non binary, and the term "AFAB" or "assigned female at birth" is simply unscientific. Being forced to use these terms forces you to express yourself using the terminology of a belief system you do not share. This is disrespectful of your beliefs, and it is not something we ask of any other groups holding a protected belief.

Thanks v much

Amazing, thanks for filling in the details

However my senior said that TWAW is a factually correct statement due to the gender recognition act giving legal status to TW.

The factually correct statement would be “a minority of transwomen are legally recognised as women for most purposes” but it’s not got the snappy thoughtstopping qualities of TWAW.

Good luck! You're being really brave. We need more and more people to stand up and be counted. It's scary when you're one of the only people doing it.

Our office was veering into the bullshit when, I think, our head of legal was made aware of the Forstater case andwe had an all staff email saying "it's entirely up to you if you put pronouns in your email signature. We are fine either way". This is public sector.

I cant add to what PP have said but I wanted to say you’re incredibly brave to stand up for what is right & do this 💐

Yes it’s horrible, I’m quite grumpy about it at the moment !! But I’m also very bloody minded so I’ll keep on going and try to be strategic about it and not annoy people too much or get emotional!!

Well, I have never had a post instantly hidden before, I promise I said nothing offensive.

All I did was try and point you in the direction of the recent report written by Maureen O'Hara about Transgenderism and Policy Capture in the Criminal Justice System.

I did put a link in that allowed you to download the report. Maybe it was that?

@MNHQ Am I not allowed to link to published reports?

I just tried to post the link again. It's definitely the link causing the post to be hidden.

@JuneOsborne If you report one of your own posts and ask MNHQ to unblock the link they will do it if the link’s not against their rules (doesn’t sound like it would be!) It sounds interesting.

OP can you ask, when they say "TW are women", what definition of the word "woman" are they using? It's not the dictionary definition i.e. female, so they need to clarify this if discussions are to be productive.

From a legal perspective the OPs employer is opening themselves up to discrimation claims if they present belief in gender identity as something everyone must subscribe to. Whether you personally agree with gender identity beliefs or are gender critical is neither here nor there. It is a protected characteristic so must be presented with care. Since her employer is already presenting one side they would do well to present the other belief in order to guard against prejudice.

Thanks for this.

I can't see that it would be against the rules, it's authored by an academic and is carefully written. I suppose it could be the source of the link, but again, it's the policy exchange, the UK's leading think tank (according to them!) And an educational charity, so that seems unlikely. But who knows, eh?

Most of us leave our politics out of the work environment.

Unless our political beliefs are that trans women are women, in case we ram them down everyone's throats?