Sex Equality and Equity Network - Gender crit network for civil servants.

[fromorbit]

Important new initiative for government workers. This is where a huge fight back is going to happen in behind the scenes government, in memos and meetings. If we don't win in the civil service, it doesn't matter how many demos or cases we win, how many twitter threads we write, sooner or later sex differences will be erased. If you work in government/public sector get involved asp.

seen-network.uk/

"We are happy to announce the launch of our new UK cross-government staff network, the Sex Equality and Equity Network.
SEEN is a staff network committed to promoting and supporting sex equality and equity between women and men in our workplaces, and helping all staff to thrive at work and fulfil their potential. The focus of our network is on challenging sex discrimination and upholding rights and protections that relate to sex (including the protections provided to those with the protected characteristics of sex, pregnancy and maternity and sexual orientation, as set out in the Equality Act 2010). We recognise that to achieve this and ensure sex equality and equity sometimes requires treating women and men differently, according to our different rights and needs.

We are also committed to the protected belief (covered by the protected characteristic of religion and belief in the Equality Act 2010) that biological sex is binary and immutable, that biological sex matters for both women and men in our everyday lives, including for our rights and needs in the workplace, and that biological sex must not be conflated with, or replaced by, the concepts of gender or gender identity."

Although they don't do NHS proper, it seems they do do certain NHS-adjacent ALBs* (they've accepted my application, anyway).

• Clue in username.

We're being called out on that Yammer thread, with a request to let Tallisker know that it's only been locked, not deleted 😂. Nice bit of "what about the menz" being pulled up though, that was refreshing to see

Is there any update on the case Mermaids v's LGB Alliance yet? I can't seem to find anything on the Sex Matters or LGB Alliance website? I know the final submissions were completed a week or so ago.

Does anyone know if Free Speech Union accepts Civil Servants/if we're allowed to join? I've had a quick look around their website and it seems to talk about unis but not CS?

And as we now know that this thread is monitored perhaps an answer may be provided on Yammer?

And as we now know that this thread is monitored

Good lord. Don't people have lives????

Was it Tony Benn who said: "To work out who has the power, look at whom you're not allowed to criticise."

vixenred it may be months yet, see thread here

Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Thread 4 www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4671917-mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-charity-commissioner-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-thread-4?msgid=121928318#121928318

*LK 😆

Windy* yes indeed

Anyone can join the FSU. It's not a union in the normal sense.

Thanks @Elephant2981.

It's all so depressing, from science-based organisations too.

What I really want is for one of these people complaining to stand up and state boldly that they don't think biological sex matters to people, and why. They should have the guts to stand up in front of all their colleagues and state sexism doesn't exist if they're going to fight a network dedicated to working on it.

But they won't do that because they'll be instantly shown up to anybody with a brain, much easier to stick with a dishonest "they're denying my right to exist!" dramatics

Just filled in our annual staff survey. In the preamble to the diversity monitoring bit it correctly listed the Equality Act protected characteristics. But in the actual questions it asked for gender identity instead of sex. (And no free text box.)

Section 7 of the 2010 Equality Act
7- Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

Thats the end of section 7 - nothing about non-binary

Yup, non-binary has no legal status or recognition at all. It has no place being used in government departments.

I was told by HR that the Jag/Landover case with the man who said he was non binary but actually presented as a 'woman' that this was 'case law' for those who think they have no sex AKA non binary. From memory the individual was terribly harassed, which was wrong, but not sure it was because of the non binary status more the transwoman status.
www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/news/gender-fluid-and-non-binary-ruling-in-jaguar-land-rover-case-calls-for-a-rewrite-of-equality-policies#:~:text=In%20the%20case%20of%20Taylor,unfairly%20dismissed%20by%20her%20employer.

@FemaleAndLearning happy to be corrected, my understanding is an Employment Tribunal judgement is not legally binding. Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) judgements are legally binding and can only be overturned by a higher court. It is EATs that normally form case law and it’s why Maya Forstater’s EAT judgement is crucial. At some point it is likely the Jaguar Land Rover case will be tested at EAT or overtaken by legislative change.

From a CS HR perspective, I would expect a non-binary employee (like all employees) to be treated with dignity and respect and not be bullied etc. Providing one or more unisex toilets along with single sex female and male toilets is a relatively simple solution for both transgender and non-binary employees.

One aspect which is much harder to manage and legislate for is, what I would call gender fluid, where some days an employee presents as their biological sex and others as transgender with different names e.g. Steve and Sandra.

I don't see why there should be any need to legislate or make artangements for people being daft.

Going back a few years the permanent secretary of defra had a trans child, who she talked about a lot in her blog and chat with the chief stuff. There was a lot of emphasis throughout defra on being able to 'bring your whole self to work' and other stuff which at the time sounded very positive.
I think it has led to a culture where people think their right to express and present themselves however they want is more important than anyone else's discomfort about losing single sex facilities.

I think it has led to a culture where people think their right to express and present themselves however they want is more important than anyone else's discomfort about losing single sex facilities.

Interesting whose "whole self" is welcomed at work. Certainly not the "inconvenience" of women's bodies in all their biological activity ...

She's now continuing her proselytizing at Citizens Advice Bureau:

www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/backlash-as-citizens-advice-tells-staff-to-wear-gender-pronoun-badges/ar-AA14RQHo

Thank you that makes more sense, but obviously there is confusion.
Yes gender fluid is difficult. Didn't the police get round this by issuing two ID cards to an officer?

I don't think we should be legislating against every personality. If someone is being bullied and harrassed they don't have to have a protected characteristic for it to be resolved.

But isn't the outcome mentioned above that non-binary people are covered by existing legislation in the Equality Act under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment? And why do male non-binary people have to use the ladies loos?

And are the problems faced by the JLR case caused by the treatment of the non-binary person by their colleagues, which is bullying, rather than anything else?

However when normal day-to-day interaction between colleagues is seen as transphobic, how on earth are we supposed to navigate an ever-changing landscape? In my office someone politely pointed out that there were differences between women and transwomen, nothing more than that, and got howled down. No debate is alive and well.

I don't think we should be legislating against every personality. If someone is being bullied and harrassed they don't have to have a protected characteristic for it to be resolved.

I agree treat everyone fairly and respectfully.

However when normal day-to-day interaction between colleagues is seen as transphobic, how on earth are we supposed to navigate an ever-changing landscape? In my office someone politely pointed out that there were differences between women and transwomen, nothing more than that, and got howled down. No debate is alive and well.

This is the greatest area of risk for Depts managing reasonable conversations.

Is it possible for the person who was howled down to politely remind everyone who howled that a) GC opinions are recognised as being worthy of respect in a democratic society, b) the Forstater case has established that it's perfectly acceptable to express this view in the workplace and c) the howlers could be understood to be discriminating and, if they keep doing, harassing?