Have civil servants performed a coup on gender?

[Shelefttheweb]

Prompted by the news that Sue Grey (soon to be Labour’s chief of staff) May or may not have tried to stop the s35 on GRR. But also the lack of response to Harry Miller’s ruling, and other ministers statements on gender. Have civil servants (include police, nhs, teachers etc) carried out a coup on this subject?

I think one very significant figure in the civil service was, at the time, Jonathan Slater as permanent undersec for Education, and a Stonewall champion. I think civil servants play a significant role in all this and was thrilled to see the formation of SEEN when it was announced.

As with anywhere I suppose, there are sensible realists who may or may not call themselves 'gender critical' but they should be able to be their 'authentic selves', as the saying goes, at work, just as much as anyone else, the civil service included.

I don’t mean how they personally present/views. I mean by not carrying out the direction of ministers and the courts they have performed a coup by seizing power and implementing decisions contrary to those of elected officials. ‘Getting ahead of the law’ or ‘stonewall law’ is implementing rules that are contrary to those decided by the House of Parliament. Unelected officials are imposing their rules on us in defiance of our democratic systems. They have seized power from our elected representatives.

You might find James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution an interesting read

The CS, like a lot of the public sector, are the boiled frog.

CS Departments have always had a commitment to equality and diversity e.g. equal pay, addressing sex, race and disability discrimination etc. Each new pc became embedded in the culture.

This meant CS en mass were, and are, used to a culture of inclusion, it is embedded in policies and procedures. The GRA 2004 was accepted and again embedded in policies etc. Stonewall and other external groups promoting specific pc have always been part of the D & I approach as “experts” to make sure the CS followed best practice.

As Allison Bailey, and others, pointed out Stonewall changed in 2015 and with a drip drip approach they slowly captured first D & I teams, then HR policies etc. Most of the changes were not challenged as they were reasonable e.g. using gender neutral language etc.

To continue the boiled frog analogy, as the water heated up some of the changes became more worrying and so some people started to challenge e.g. Toilets, pregnant employees etc. but by then the no debate, transphobic accusations were used to silence them.

Fear of being seen as transphobic/discriminatory when one of your performance objectives relates to D & I silenced people. Board members becoming Champions for each PC etc. sets the corporate stance.

As a pp says there is now the SEEN network, and CS are pushing back but at the end of the day their job is to support Ministers.

I believe the tide had already started to turn. Ironically Adam Graham/Isla Bryson and Nicola Sturgeon may inadvertently have speeded up the process e.g. the new guidance on trans prisoners.

Maya Forstater’s EAT judgement will have been carefully considered by HR and legal advisors but it takes time to revise policies And to change the culture when the debate is so toxic.

It's surprising there's not more on Gray and S35 other than the one Mail on Sunday article(?). Maybe more will come. If true, it's unforgivable. It's trashing the reputation of the civil service, something it needed like a hole in the head.

And no, she should not be allowed to slip off to any political party. She and Keir must know that (indeed, his advisors advised against it). When did they meet? His lawyer's answer won't hold for long.

Wow - hadn't heard the Sue Grey news.

I thought it was impossible for Labour to do anything that could render them more untrustworthy, but seems there's always a new low they can sink to.

I also hadn’t heard the news about SG and S35.

I am always cautious about media reports, in my experience they always put a spin on it and can omit relevant facts.

Her job was to give impartial advice to the government of the day. Potentially that is what she did, as the government will have sought advice, particularly legal advice, on invoking S35.

The Partygate report is a different issue, as it’s clear they broke the rules.

The Partygate report is a different issue, as it’s clear they broke the rules.

May be though I would have expected any civil servants who took part in that to have been sacked or at least disciplined by their civil servant bosses. But regardless of what she found in that investigation in order to do an effective investigation, and in her subsequent job, she would have been party to privileged information. I am surprised civil servants directly serving the government like that are not bound by restrictive covenants preventing them taking that knowledge to parties still in opposition. That she can is sufficient to question the impartiality of ALL government civil servants. Are they lining themselves up political jobs with the opposition too?

But I wasn’t referring just to Sue Grey, I was referring anyone civil servant who has sat in on a Stonewall training and not pulled them up for their false presentation of the law, anyone who signed up to or submitted to diversity awards. Anyone who has taught, or allowed to be taught, gender ideology in schools. Any police arresting women but ignoring threats against women. Anyone removing single sex toilets from work places. Anyone NHS employee responsible for removing sex from records or the word woman from health materials for women.....

There's a lot of things here.

The general staff - like anywhere I suppose - won't be highly paid people who can afford to rock the boat. People might have just nodded along and inwardly eye rolled, and now they might push back however they can.

If the S35 reports are as they seem, that will be one matter in itself.

The contact with Labour - especially when - will be another.

Partygate is another issue.

We don't know if there are links between any of these.

But as to the OP...just like civil servants shouldn't be getting into bed with Stonewall, they also shouldn't be rebelling or leading a GC charge. Or swing, or whatever you call it. They need to be politically neutral. And that needs to come from their leaders.

This is what she's supposed to have written in an email about using section 35 according to the Mail On Sunday:

'I found reference to S35 difficult, but I found even more difficult the words about stopping the Bill. But as you say, this seems to have been agreed.’

No further context is given (and bear in mind that Boris Johnson and his allies are trying to smear the hell out of her right now).

But as to the OP...just like civil servants shouldn't be getting into bed with Stonewall, they also shouldn't be rebelling or leading a GC charge. Or swing, or whatever you call it. They need to be politically neutral. And that needs to come from their leaders.

Rejecting gender neutral toilets is not ‘leading a GC charge’ - it is complying with the law laid out by parliament that workplaces must have single sex toilets. Stating that men who identify as women can not use women’s toilets is not rebelling it is complying with the equality act. Ensuring materials taught in schools are not sexually explicit is complying with the law and safeguarding. Being impartial requires civil servants to follow the law as it stands.

Be fair OP, you were talking about staging a coup! Yes they should comply with the law but the answer to tackling the infiltration of the civil service by a political movement, cannot be to add more politics. It's got to be political neutrality. It just has to.

But nothing I stated was partial, everything I stated was upholding the law as it stands or the direction of government ministers. They are not being impartial, they are ignoring laws created by parliament and ministerial directions to impose their own rules. There is nothing neutral about signing up to stonewall diversity schemes or the training they offer. There is nothing neutral about replacing single sex toilets with gender neutral ones and telling men they can use women’s toilets if they feel like it. There is nothing neutral about arresting KJK but ignoring TRAs making violent threats against women. There is nothing neutral about asking ‘gender’ on equality monitoring forms but not asking about the protected characteristic of sex. All these changes amount to a coup as they are ignoring the will of parliament and government and imposing their ideology on us all.

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. My point is they can't fight it with more politics. And sticking to the law isn't more politics, it's the right way of doing things (ie the way it should always have been).