Need some help being a judge

[Athenajm80]

I volunteered to judge nominations for an award at work (Civil Service department, we have been Stonewalled but it's not really obvious thankfully)

We have to write our thoughts on each nomination but then will meet and discuss them to decide who wins.

One nomination is for a non binary person, lots of use of "they". The work side of the nomination is ok, but then a good section of the form goes on about how x has done their normal job whilst still representing and standing for LGBT++ colleagues, including getting the entire department to now state their pronouns on their emails.

I COULD just focus on the work part and base my opinion on that, but I want to be prepared for the pronoun part to come up in the discussion and to be able to explain coherently why that has caused me to mark the person lower.

I was thinking of putting something about this putting pressure on GC colleagues, trans/non binary people who aren't "out" yet, but didn't know what else I could say that makes it sound like a well thought out point, rather than an attack (literal violence!) on the candidate. I'm not too bothered if they disagree or if it counts against me at work, partly cause I'm only on a secondment, but I want to make people think.

Do you think I could say something about it being discriminatory against those with gender critical beliefs which are protected in law and refer to the Forstater case? It may be unreasonable of me, but I don't want this person to win based on "how brave and strong" they are, when actually it's not IMO brave and strong to follow the Stonewall yoonique shit.

Sorry for the long post!

The OP isn't marking the person down for being non-binary, but because of their work on pronouns.

Someone shouldn't be marked down for their work on pronouns though, UNLESS it had directly had a negative impact on their actual paid work. Which OP doesn't suggest it has.

I'm as GC as they come - but people can't be discriminated against because of their legally held beliefs.

I've been mulling this over during the day and I think, OP, you need to work out what the issue is for you.

Is it that you find the non-binary purple pronoun person inherently irritating? In which case I sympathise, but it would be quite wrong - and frank discrimination - to let that factor in. To the extent that, if you can't set it aside, you should recuse yourself from the panel.

Is it that the pronoun advocacy is irrelevant? If so, set that material aside and focus on the relevant information. You might want to ask fellow panellists, "Perhaps you could help me see how this is relevant to this award?" or something.

Is it that it's created problems? If so, focus on that. "My concern is that this has diverted this individual's focus from their core role... had this impact on their team..." Whatever.

But identify the concerns you have, and then you'll know what to say. "I don't like pronoun stuff for these reasons" isn't enough. I agree with you! But equally I recognise others are entitled to find pronouns important, and shouldn't be disadvantaged because of it.

I thought "the pronoun part" referred to the work they had done in requiring pronouns in emails, rather than it meaning "the person is NB". I'm sure the OP can clarify, but that would be in line with the opening post, where they spell out that it's the work requiring pronouns that is giving them pause for thought, and not that the person is trans.

OP should not even be considering the pronoun thing - it's irrelevant

Agreed. But that's not being affected by the person being non-binary. Janet specifically stated that the OP wanted to mark them down for that.

Oh no. Have this weird thing going on where the titles don't match the threads. Sorry, I'll try and get my post deleted and put it on the Penny Maudant thread

I agree, concentrate on the work if it is an award for work. That is the only fair and reasonable way to judge unless in the rubric around the award other areas such as mentoring, supporting diversity , offering CPD are specifically mentioned. In the case of diversity then all areas of diversity should be considered as a pp mentions upthread, it is not an opportunity for a soapbox.

Why is everyone saying not to mention the pronouns "activism"? If it's not appropriate to be part of the judgement it shouldn't be part of the nomination.

Op will of course need to broach it carefully because people who believe in gender identity will find any challenge offensive/harmful/dangerous/beyond the pale but that doesn't make it unsayable.

To clarify, I wouldn't mark them down for being non-binary. I'm not a complete asshole. I might not agree with their gender beliefs, but that's not what I was thinking about. I put the last but about thinking they look like a TRA just as a personal opinion but I wouldn't judge them workwise for that.

It was the insertion of all the "stunning and brave" "they made everyone do the pronoun thing" that I was wondering about. It's got nothing to do with the nomination or category, and I was trying to work out whether, by nature of the fact it had been included, I would count it as part of the nomination and therefore could see it as a negative for all the great reasons @CharlotteOH has put. Also, I wanted to be prepared for the discussion meeting in case someone else mentioned it and how would I then be able to phrase my objections to this being considered a positive.

I hope that makes more sense. I honestly dgaf how someone wants to identify, just don't force it on others in your workplace by insisting we all do the pronouns on email shit.

Also, thank you to a pp who thought this post may be outing. I don't particularly care if someone tries to work out who I am from the 435,000 civil servants in the UK. All departments I have worked in have awards around this time of year anyway, so I'm sure there are a few other people in this position (not least the other judges in my award category)

Once again, thank you all for your posts. I think I know now how I will deal with this (and no, it won't be to mark them down for looking like they'd irritate me 😁)