Looking for advice/guidance - it's long...apologies.

[Gatehouse77]

I volunteer for a national charity in a local capacity. Head office sent out a survey earlier this year to all volunteers as part of their new EDI directive. This was to gather information about the volunteers and how best to support them.

I duly filled in said survey and then emailed the feedback address to ask why they weren't collecting data on sex (obviously they asked about gender) and what the data collected on gender would be used for. I got back a very vanilla reply using the Equality Act 2010 and 'best practice', it was an optional survey/question, etc.

I responded by asking where in the Equalities Act it states gender as opposed to gender reassignment? And why they were leaving out sex which is a protected characteristic.

This was escalated to the Head of EDI who basically spouted the same but stated that they were specifically looking for those who identify as trans/non-binary. Again, because it's optional they see no issue with this.

I replied asking why, if it's optional, they can't include all the protected characteristics from the EA2010? If some volunteers don't identify by gender but by sex does that mean they are not included?

The response was they won't budge. I then wrote back including the CEO and Chair of Trustees including photos of the EDI posters stating they are there for 'everyone'. I stated that I now felt forced to 'out' myself from an anonymous survey to say I am being excluded from the volunteer experience as I don't identify by (any) gender. I asked why the two cannot be done alongside?

The Chair replied - we are there for everyone (gaslighting much - I've just stated that I feel excluded?) and they won't been pulled into 'culture wars' around gender.

I now want to go wider within my branch to see if there is support for taking this further. On my own it's going to make little to no difference, I'm easily batted away. I get waves of fury and frustration but, equally, feel quite impotent about what to do next. I have spoken to another volunteer and she is also challenging the EDI department but from a slightly different angle - aligning themselves with political lobby groups in the name of 'be kind'.

If anyone has any suggestions or ideas of what to do I'd be very grateful. I should state the charity, to me knowledge and I have researched, are not Stonewall Champions but there are associations with staff who have worked for them in the past...

EDI departments have created a culture war so the Chair saying they want to stay out of it is somewhat myopic.

Our EDI director just left and we are all really pleased, she was a bully, bullied her own team, was really divisive and had a grievance over the most minor issues. She of course attracted all the other people with grievances to her.

We are glad she's gone.

I would just point out that the Chair has taken a side in the culture war and is making it very clear which one and leave it at that as EDI is largely pointless and ineffectual.

Did they say in writing that they are specifically looking to only support trans or non binary people?

There's some advice on the 'Sex Matters' website which may be helpful if you haven't already seen it - sex-matters.org/where-sex-matters/data-and-statistics/#overview

I'm not an expert, and hoping someone who is can comment on this, but I think there's something about organisations putting themselves at risk in not collecting data about protected characteristics. If they don't collect data on sex, then I imagine it must be hard to defend themselves against claims of sex discrimination if they don't have any data. Your EDI department may not regard sex as an important characteristic, nor feel it should be protected, but nevertheless it is a protected characteristic, and they have to act within that legal context.

Remind them they are not allowed to rewrite an Act of Parliament to suit their own ends. The Equality Act 2010 has not been amended, has not been updated, it needs another Act to do that.

Ask them if they think it would be ok to drive at 80mph as modern cars are easily capable of it these days. Or actually, do they agree that no they can't, because it's the law and hasn't been updated or amended.

Why not write to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as you've already done the work of writing out the case here? Easy Peasy. You can name the charity to the EHRC - for all you know, they may have heard from other people. Incidentally, can you name it here or are you choosing not to, to protect your own anonymity?

I am very loath to suggest this but
The Scottish Government has just published the STAGE 1 REPORT ON THE GENDER RECOGNITION REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL.digitalpublications.parliament.scot/Committees/Report/EHRCJ/2022/10/6/d81c72da-4070-4355-aacb-cc58d9c1bc08#28bef6c5-5037-4e67-9d7f-2cae300babea.dita

There is a section on Impact on Data Collection which starts on page 79. From paragraph 524 onwards Professor Alice Sullivan’s testimony was particularly good on data collection and the difference between collecting data on sex and gender. You may be able to use some of this.

The conclusions are on page 82.

Point out the risks of reputational damage as suffered by CDC and GCC in Maya and Allison’ s tribunals.

Point out that being Gender Critical is also a protected belief under EA 2010.

Thank you for all your input and I will follow those links.

Well done. I work amongst charities and I've noticed a massive difference between the national bodies who are hand-wringing and virtue signalling and the local ones who are just getting on with the work and on the whole think it's either confusing / a load of nonsense / irrelevant / discriminatory.

Difficult to know what you can do, but volunteers can be in a better place to challenge this in some ways - I'm certainly more open in my voluntary role than paid, but it's still infuriating and has a personal cost - just know there are likely to be thousands of people who agree with you and will be grateful you're doing this.

Problem with that is woman wasn’t an option, hence my questioning. So I agree with you, it should be that simple and not an issue. Thank you for agreeing!