Where is the drive coming from?

[Teriyakieverything]

I don't get it. Time after time, so many high profile cases where institutions and corporations push for self ID/gender ideology/queer theory and the impacted people or customers have clearly said 'no', and I thought that must be it, it'll stop after this - it doesn't, it just carries on, wave after wave of this BS, it's relentless.

It's like they don't care what the customers think even if they get boycotted, e.g. BudLight, Maybelline, Costa, Dr Martin are recent cases that come to mind. Do companies not care about falling sales and bad PR anymore, do they not care about making profits, how do they continue to exist?

Schools - where is the drive to keep going with this BS despite parents objecting and pupils calling it out. Drag queen story time in libraries, why are some councils pushing this?

I can’t answer your question.

You’re probably aware of some of the investigative journalism done by Jennifer Bilek on this topic:

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/#.WowaHsS0mwM.twitter

I think there’s a lot of investment behind this movement and there’s evidence suggesting that the secrecy with which it was introduced is not accidental either. The business tactics of hostile takeovers appear to have been used, which is why it’s now so embedded. Some of the tactics are outlined in the Denton’s document.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

There is something odd going on though, that’s not visible, or at least that’s how it feels. There is Helen Joyce’s sunk costs theory: people who have transed their children, or allowed them to be transed, cannot afford psychologically to backtrack. Where they are in positions of power, changing the direction of travel is going to be nearly impossible.

Every time I think the tide is turning, another mystery appears or so it seems. I don’t understand why companies are still falling over backwards to support this. The publishing industry is so captured that I can’t even begin to imagine how it will be turned around.

It’s very difficult psychologically, but then it’s meant to be. We are slowly making progress, but the waves do keep coming. It’s going to be a long way back.

My first thought with companies/advertising is that they are constantly on the look out to appeal to young customers. But idk if this is enough to cover it.

Obviously coming up with "no debate" and attempting to tie it in with lgb discrimination is genius

Somehow all the outside training agencies on edi are paid loads to tell companies what to do and schools. For schools edi is high on ofsted so it's in development plans etc. The want to be progressive?

I think it's part of corporate ESG policy.

But why though?

I proudly googled my way to that article a few months ago (not-so stealth boast!! 😄) and I felt like a crazy Qanon conspiracy loon.
But it does make sense, we’ve seen it before with tobacco, petrol/oil, sugar, processed food, and it sadly is much of the answer.

I think in corporates it is relatively easy to virtue signal. Adding she/her to an email sulignature is so much easier than fixing the gender pay gap or improving diversity at exec levels.

Julia Hartley Brewer asked Helen Joyce this. Something along the lines of even when these companies know their virtue signals are unpopular, and even produce a negative financial impact, why do they keep doing it?

Helen's answer was, loosely, that their LGBT/EDI representative or department or marketing team, will suggest something and each layer or sign off is too shit scared to say no.

And we know that's true. And we know why. Women have been threatened, intimidated and persecuted relentlessly over this.

As @Toseland says it's all part of an ESG and diversity policies within companies.

So let's take Company A that knows it needs to meet ESG and diversity targets. So it employs an ESG officer to do this.

Now on the environmental targets yes the company can buy green energy, recycle more, put in energy efficient light bulbs etc but let's face it for the ESG officer that is alot of work and a bit dull.

So on the Governance part, the ESG officer can start getting involved in how the Directors run the company and whether their actions are appropriate/ legal. But you really need to know your stuff and corporate law her plus you run the very real risk of pissing off the Directors who employ you.

So on diversity, legally there cannot be any discrimination (racism, sexism etc). But what metric do you use to ensure diversity- female managers, BAME employees, gay managers disabled employees etc. It is impossible to have an employee at all levels of seniority from top to bottom that perfectly mirrors society.

Which leaves social and given that no one really cares about the race, religion or sexuality of employees or customers then what better way for the ESG officer and company to generate publicity and appear on trend than to promote trans issues. Plus they fear the backlash if they appear to be anything less than actively promoting trans issues.

Yes this. Also it’s what campaigning can look like.

ESG teams and HR teams are on the look out for new stuff to do. Things that don’t cost much like the pride flag and guidance on pronouns on emails are attractive vs making the financial case to close the male / female pay gap.

ans it was marketed to them glossing by Stonewall et al as ‘the next thing’ which as ‘just like gay rights’.

some in those teams will be on the TRA side and using their position to drive it forward. Others just don’t think about this (or anything) that hard and do what’s coming down the track. Or have doubts but set them aside for an easy life / because the risk of questioning it can be high.

Some see the push back as ‘just like racism’ or ‘just like Brexit’ so assume all push back is a sign they are ‘on the right side of history’.

a well organised campaign + proffering any easy life + fear of challenging ‘inclusivity’ can take an idea a very long way.

i think in the U.K. the high tide is about now. As labour are moving towards a compromise position, other centre left-ish people and orgs will dare to do so with that permission/ cover.

or will think again now a different power base is backing away from the TRA position.

the sexism / misogyny of a lot of centrist or leftish men has been revealed by these issues.

It's everywhere, if I see that flag one more time I'll scream. All the shops on the high street, all the banks. Not so bad for a tiny persecuted minority...

No inclusion for any other groups.

All these businesses and banks trade with countries with horrific human rights record. They drop the flag from their logo when they are trading with homophobic countries. I am just so sick and tired of the misogyny and homophobia.

My autistic, sex stereotype non conforming daughter does not have a snowballs chance in hell.

@Cloudburstings

"ESG teams and HR teams are on the look out for new stuff to do. Things that don’t cost much like the pride flag and guidance on pronouns on emails are attractive vs making the financial case to close the male / female pay gap."

Definitely this - it's easier to do, doesn't cost much and ticks a box.

Many companies, including schools, have a role where it's a person's entire job to push this kind of change. For example head of EDI. There's one at my school, one of the Pastoral assistant heads. This kind of job inevitably attracts the type of person who has "inclusive" beliefs (nb not inclusive of vulnerable women and girls or people with religious beliefs).

No one's actual job is to push back on this stuff. That requires customers' complaints and internal whistleblowers.

But these complaints get passed onto the above person, head of EDI or equivalent.

Who dismisses it.

Etc.

This has happened at my school. I pushed back via a letter to the Head of safeguarding about a new policy, written by the assistant head above mentioned, encouraging boys to use the female changing rooms if they felt more comfortable there through "questioning their gender". This was so soon after my school had disproportionately high number of reports of SA via Everyone's Invited.

I got given a lipservice response and the policy wasn't changed. I've no doubt it was simply forwarded to the above person who said "it's ok, stonewall/mermaids says it's what the Equality Act requires".

Such a good question. When you watch the determination with which some men defend a man's right to access naked girls in changing rooms, when you start to list the flashing / porn obsessions of some of those born males our MPs choose to listen to about removing safeguarding and safety for women, when you look at cash strapped councils finding the resources for drag queens to access even the youngest of children while cutting other activities for children, it's raises the question about who benefits from all this? And the answers are worrying about the nature of some of these people being openly courted.

And then the NHS - having to be dragged away screaming from sterilising children, staff lying and openly perverting the course of justice to protect a male rapist placed on a women's ward... the most senior people not just ignoring this but openly supporting it.

"the sexism / misogyny of a lot of centrist or leftish men has been revealed by these issues."

Even as a left supporter/former member of Labour Party I think decades of misogyny has flourished in this political area as supported by trade unions who, traditionally, were about workers rights which included protecting jobs for men from women.

That's appalling Mummy08m
As you've written you're probably aware of them but have you contacted Safe Schools Alliance about this? Just in case you haven't here's their factsheet on single sex facilities:

https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/singlesextoiletsfactsheet.pdf

As a small aside, just got back from a brief visit to the tourist area of south of France and saw nothing of this.

I agree that it's probably a mixed bag of companies hiring young graduate who are full on board with TWAW etc. and start making changes demands when they join the HR/ Marketing department.

Along with wanting to appear 'ethical' without having to actually do the hard work of paying a living wage or ensuring an ethical supply chain, which are both expensive and may eat into shareholder profits - however displaying a rainbow flag around the place is cheap and easy to do.

I would also add that most companies' twitter and media accounts are run by younger employees and therefore the brand message is very much set by their worldview.

I know it seems like I'm blaming the young people - not necessarily, as I believe the failure is also on the part of more experienced management etc. who fail to set boundaries or just go along with this shit. Although they may be afraid of appearing mean or bigoted when told that this is 'the new gay' and don't really see the harm.

That is completely correct. The Labour Party have had this problem and it's only going to be corrected with more women getting involved and pushing back.

The "Corporate Diversity Index".

And the fact that they see their new customers in the "enlightened" 15-25 or even 15-35 group, who are more tuned into this message, gradually replacing the older Gammons and Karens who object to this stuff, but represent a shrinking part of their customer base.

So, they virtue signal to their own kind, ie other FTSE 500 companies re their Stonewalled diversity credentials, and virtue signal "signifying" messages to their switched on burgeoning customer base that is their main base in 5-10 years hence, when we're all put out to pasture.

In my observation there are 3 ingredients:

1. One or two strong TRAs pushing 'no debate' and actively holding company/org leaders to account on trans inclusivity
2. Folk who are clueless about it all and just want to go along with whatever is 'right' and inclusive, therefore support everything said by group 1.
3. People who are gender critical, want to push back but know that they will be publicly shamed, ostracized and pushed out of their jobs by groups 1&2 in combo.

I saw a complaint about the sex education materials in a school and their complaint investigation was to ask the provider who said it was fine.

I mean, crikey.

Yes it is all about the ESG scores. Which are needed for funding/loans/cashflow etc. Much better access when you tick the ESG boxes. And a flag is alot cheaper than reducing landfill.or child labour.

I've mentioned before the Sustainability goals. These all meet the requirements internationally and so that is all they care about. The fact that they may not have a sustainable business never seems to cross their minds.

Yep, agree with RealityFan and another post touched on it as well.

Many of these companies have metrics they are in some way tied to which means they need to be seen to be addressing certain things,or taking certain kinds of action. Maybe, points for having a black history shout out on a product, say. Or encouraging customers to embrace inclusivity, whatever.

It doesn't matter that these things don't have bugger all to do with their products, it just gives them points, basically.

Yep way ahead of you I'm afraid - I forwarded lots of resources and legal explainers from safe sex alliance, transgender trend etc. Backed up the points with specific past incidents at my actual school. I carefully wrote my concerns to be as concise and legally informative as possible.

Head of safeguarding said thank you. He would monitor developments and take situations on a case by case basis.

Policy never got changed (this was maybe 18m ago, still hasn't changed). Since my email several more trans girls came out (ie MTF students) and were very much openly celebrated for doing so by assistant head mentioned. Head of safeguarding, who I'd written to, added pronouns to his email signature a few months later.

We have by no means reached the peak of the wave. This is the waves seeming to recede before the tsunami. The problem in schools is only going to get bigger and bigger before it goes away.