Key things to say to a head of inclusion sponsor

[Thethingswedoforlove]

Was out for dinner this evening with some friends. Turns out one of them (husband of my childhood friend) runs the dei network for a big U.K. firm. He is very senior there. They are a gay couple so they understand the perspective of facing discrimination etc. I asked whether the firm was linked to stonewall. Big yes. I said I thought they are toxic. And that I would like to separately talk to him to make him aware of how some women would definitely be feeling at his work but would be too scared to say openly. He called me a terf, said that the risks are overstated and that because he has a trans woman helping him lead the network that was already covered. I explained that she didn’t understand in the same way that I could explain as she isn’t a woman in the same way that I am a woman and he just totally dismissed me. His husband (my friend) was trying to broke the peace and suggest we had a conversation offline over lunch or something. I explained the legal risk I’m not following the equality act 2010 and that I would be happy to chat. I won’t follow it up but if he does, what can I possibly say to him? I said he is male and therefore doesn’t have a reason to get what I am trying to say and he asked me not to exclude him. Is it utterly pointless trying to chat to him?

You think gay men can’t be misogynist?

That's good advice nomorequinoa
It's amazing that there are posters self identifying as women popping up on here to scold a woman for voicing her opinions. Claiming to be feminists yet displaying a deep ignorance of organisational / structural power, discrimination against women in the work place and the current deluge of court cases from women who've been silenced / sacked for saying what trans extremists would prefer women to keep quiet about. See today's expose demonstrating how those placing rapists and sex offenders in cells alongside vulnerable women operate in order to stop women speaking up about VAWG. This is how promoting predatory values works - by silencing dissent. It's a chilling read:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4681381-telegraph-ministry-of-justice-officials-warned-that-talk-about-protecting-women-could-be-transphobic

You are very brave to broach this with him only to be insulted and dismissed, which is disgusting. He has got himself into a powerful position and doesn't care about women and what they may experience in the workplace. This is the reality of power and entitlement and he's not about to relinquish any of it. I very much doubt there is anything to be gained by even speaking to him again and putting yourself through this.

It's not the LGBT+ inclusion bit that's the issue is it?

It's that there are nine characteristics, not just one, and that he cannot ignore beliefs that don't match his personal politics or use prejudicial and discriminatory language. He seems to have the same issue as some posters here, in believing that this kind of thing is fine so long as you only discriminate against and exclude the people you politically disagree with.

This does not stand up in court, and it is not going to work if someone sues him.

Btw, are you saying that someone gay cannot be homophobic?

Someone working as a head of inclusion should be capable of examining and questioning their own prejudices and challenging their own assumptions.

Someone working as head of inclusion should not be directing hate filled slurs towards anyone.

OP I'd ignore this comment tbh. Women who speak up about being silenced are now routinely harrassed, verbally assaulted and sometimes fired. If anyone thinks we can assume that women can speak up for themselves then they don't, or don't want to, understand just how dangerous and toxic it currently is to talk about women's rights.

I’ve decided not to say anything to him. If he asks for a coffee or a lunch then I’ll see how I feel as that might mean he is genuinely wanting to know more. But it probably means he wants to persuade me and I can’t be bothered with that.

I would at least mention that he threw an offensive slur at you - what would he do if one colleague threw a slur at another colleague?

OP thank you for being brave and raising this. I’m sorry you were insulted as a result, that is unacceptable at any level, but even more so from someone whose professional role legally includes ensuring that GC views are protected in his organisation. Unlike some posters, I can see why his female colleagues may not feel able to raise this! It has been well reported that Stonewall are issuing poor legal advice, any DEI professional should be up to speed with this, you were doing him a favour by pointing it out.
Anyone who thinks this is not appropriate should consider what their response would be if OP were challenging racist attitudes, and why they think women deserve less consideration than other protected groups?

As a side note, if the manager is question were displaying anti-trans views, I imagine many on this board would also challenge that. All discrimination is wrong, it’s a shame some of our posters don’t share that view

But the organising isn't betting LGBT inclusive, just T inclusive, which isn't the same thing.

The law is the law and it's quite clear that it's supposed to be applied in the same way, protecting those who have any of the 9 protected characteristics from discrimination due to those characteristics.

He is incapable of having a conversation about women's rights without resorting to verbal abuse.

The point of equality law is that it protected everyone, not just those who have enough power and confidence to stand up for themselves.

He sounds clueless and a liability to the company.

Well done, OP, for trying. I don't blame you for not feeling up to another round of it.

Bollocks, bloody phone! Should read: The organisation isn't being...

Since you raised the issue, if he wants to convince you, that is a great opportunity for a reasoned discussion surely? Debate is a first step.

@Runningintolife thanknyou. You are right re the importance of debate. I feel hurt I think.

Or dare him to do a guaranteed 100% anonymous and see what happens. He might ‘be educated’.

I feel hurt for you, OP. Your good friend's husband showed you disrespect, diminished your expertise, and called you names. I imagine you might even worry a bit that your friend is dominated by his husband in an unhealthy way. This man could have simply said, "I'm not sure I could agree with you. Let's chat another time." But he had to insult you in front of your friends. He's a misogynistic jerk.

If my husband called a friend (well anyone) a nasty name I’d go mad.

Such nastiness always from the ‘bekind’ brigade.

@Delphinium20 @KittensNotMittens thank you for your support

Dinner parties don’t usually involve someone you just met telling you you’re doing your job wrong and they’d like to chat over lunch about how they think you’re breaking the law.

Can you maybe see that this was totally inappropriate to go into in this situation?

If my partner’s childhood mate, who knows nothing about me and my work and professional life, challenged my expertise like that I can’t imagine we’d choose their company ever again.

Seriously rude, no matter how justified you feel. You can’t possibly know enough about his work or the organisation to comment in that way, and an unsolicited judgement at a dinner party is bound to make everyone uncomfortable and embarrassed for you.

@WittyWhatNow I have known his husband for about 20 years. But thanks. And I didn’t tell him how to do anything. I simply made him aware of how some women in his very big organisation would be feeling. I did call stonewall toxic which I get I shouldn’t have. I clearly wasn’t perfect.I thought he would be more interested in genuine inclusion.

I think you were perfectly entitled to give your opinion - although I agree with some previous posters that Stonewall is seen as sacred among lots of middle-aged gay men and lesbians. I've noticed that there are plenty, often non-parents and not working in education or anything to do with safeguarding, who just have no idea about what's been going on, and still think of Stonewall as the force for good it used to be. So he might well have felt defensive at your use of 'toxic'. On the other hand, we don't force people to wear kid gloves on other topics ('bloody tories/bloody brexit etc) so it does feel rather hypocritcal to be so defensive on this subject.

I agree with Beamur, (first hand grenade of a renegade thought) who said that when somebody with whom you align on many issues says something which has never occured to you, you think - oh, maybe they have a point? and the idea slowly takes shape in your head - maybe not for this chap directly, I wouldn't bother talking to him, but perhaps for your old friend?

Stonewall is toxic, and its now actively homophobic. And I say that as a middle aged gay person.

People still clinging to what it was 30 years ago before it went completely batshit need to open their eyes. And realise that those less generous and balanced than the OP could have smartly reported him to HR for his open prejudice and offensive language, if not opened up a legal case. The political lobby the chap seems in thrall to would not hesitate to have caused as much harm as possible if they were in the OPs position.

Exactly this. You’re having a meal with friends, you question someone who has achieved a senior position in their role and has lived experience as a member of the lgbtq+ community, alongside working closely with a trans woman, you assume that you speak for women in his company, suggest he’s breaking the law and can’t do his job, and generally sound like you made the meal uncomfortable for everyone, and you think the guy owes you something?

maybe asking him how his workplace have handled any issues raised by the recent stonewall media stories might have been a more open and collaborative way to exude an actual conversation?

Ok thank you I understand I could have handled the conversation better. What I was asking for in my op was less of a critique of the words I chose and more how I can constructively make my points better should there be a further conversation.

Btw I’m not sure I think the guy owes me anything. Not clear why you have inferred that.

There isn’t going to be a further conversation. People don’t seek out more time with the dinner party guest who critiqued their professional role and challenged their expertise as a light chat with the starters.