UK Government Pushed City Watchdog to Cancel Trans Inclusion Policy OR EHRC try to do their job - you decide

[ARoombaOfOnesOwn]

www.vice.com/en/article/n7zbmd/kemi-badenoch-fca

EHRC and Kemi Badenoch, then Equalities Minister I should say. I felt the title was long enough!

How do you even call that an "inclusion policy"?

It's not even about including or excluding people from something like sports categories, it's straightforward stats collection, with no actual impact on any individual whatsoever!

Was this the FCA who had one of Stonewall's senior people on board who tried to initiate a policy of self ID that would have instantly negated all the data on the sex pay gap and women's representation in the industry?
Pushed by the usual trans extremist groups with no thought about the consequences for women (as usual)?

"VICE World News attempted to access the letters sent by Badenoch and the EHRC through Freedom of Information Act requests sent to the government, the EHRC and the FCA. All requests were blocked.

The responses said: “Should the information be disclosed, it could lead to speculation on the rationale behind our current decision-making process/es on these matters. We have determined that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the information”, adding how releasing the requested information “could seriously undermine the FCA’s regulatory function.” "

Does the Oxford Uni / Stonewall / ICO ruling not set a precedent that, in instances where there is a publicly funded body that is making important decisions, transparency should over-rule secrecy over decision-making?

Thank you for the link. This was the bit that jumped out at me:
the FCA was planning to release the trans-inclusive workplace policy in early 2022, which would have requested the organisations it regulates adopt “self-ID” for reporting on workplace diversity.
This means, for example, a trans woman in a leadership role in an accountancy firm could be listed as a female employee, and she would then count towards the number of female leaders in finance.

Please could you explain how you think this would have been of benefit to females working in finance?
You have posted this on a feminist board so I am assuming this is your concern?

Or is that your point? That this would have been a backwards step for females working in finance, and from where I'm sitting, not massively helpful to transwomen either?

You have posted this on a feminist board so I am assuming this is your concern?

Good question Flo.

I don’t think that article will do KB any harm. As well as helpfully highlighting the huge problem of TW being counted as women for equal pay purposes despite them not facing any of the same barriers, it points out how much public concern there was about such a stupid and sexist proposed policy. KB comes out of it really well.

I don't understand how it would have benefited women or transwomen to keep statistics that mashed together two protected characteristics. The article doesn't explain it to me at all.

The ‘sex’ of an individual is an important protected characteristic,” wrote Badenoch, stating: “It would be helpful to understand what measures are in place to ensure that your approach does not undermine your efforts to measure and improve the representation of the female sex in company boards

So despite the hysteric headline, what KB and EHRC actually said was along the lines of 'women are a protected characteristic, you can't just record men as women and then say you've improved representation on boards'.

What sort of monster wants to allow the old-fashioned, non-penisy women to be put in charge of companies?

Please could you explain how you think this would have been of benefit to females working in finance?

You have posted this on a feminist board so I am assuming this is your concern?

I think, given the 'EHRC doing its job' bit, that OP's pointing out it would have been fucking terrible for women.

Yes, I was unsure so asked over two separate posts. But the first post does sound snarky so apologies for that op.

I guess I'm hanging around hoping someone can explain how dropping the policy was anti trans? How would it have helpful for either protected characteristic?

No problem Flo. To be honest my OP wasn’t very clear. The article is by Ben Hunte of Vice (formerly BBC) and he is v v biased in this area so I was being sarcastic, without actually explaining much!

The policy was going to be detrimental to women but of course Ben Hunte and the other wokesters do not care about that. I agree with a pp I don’t see how inaccurate stats help transwomen either, but i guess the validation is more important.

Oh my days, I hadn't registered it was by Ben Hunte 😱What a career move, from the BBC to Vice.

Ben Hunte who is as woke as hell, writing in Vice (wokest of them all, yet arranges parties in Saudi Arabia). Used to read some of Vice, but is too focused on identity politics now.

Looks like a hit job on Kemi.

The article is by Ben Hunte

For anyone unfamiliar with Ben, he self-identifies as a journalist (in roughly the and the H in is name is pronounced like a K.

That should be:

(in roughly the same way Boris Johnson identifies as honest)

Our really progressive plans were suddenly splashed across British media, and totally spun to create drama, and then we received a ridiculous amount of negative letters. They called trans women ‘men’ and said that our plans would lead to cis-women being erased from leadership roles.
I doubt anyone who wrote in to complain used the term cis women!

The ‘sex’ of an individual is an important protected characteristic,” wrote Badenoch, stating: “It would be helpful to understand what measures are in place to ensure that your approach does not undermine your efforts to measure and improve the representation of the female sex in company boards.”

Boo added: “In UK law, a person’s legal sex is determined by what is recorded on their birth certificate. A trans person can change their legal sex by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate.” He says, his concern is that the trans-inclusive policy change “will make it more difficult for you to gather accurate data on the longstanding under-representation of women in senior roles.”

They did not want it to seem as though women were in top roles if in fact trans women were.