I've name changed for this post as it will be outing if colleagues read it.
I had a meeting today with my Trust's EDI manager. I have a senior role in the Trust and was asked to meet with her as she wanted to explore my lack of engagement in the wide range of initiatives she has invited me to engage in.
I don't think the meeting went to plan. I think she expected the conversation to lead to me feeling 'exposed' as someone whose views are not acceptable and who needs to 'do better'. I think it helped that this was a 1:1 meeting I told her that I wanted to take the opportunity of meeting with her to explore how she might be able to help with some EDI concerns of my own.
I explained that since qualifying I use the title 'Dr' so I do not have to disclose my sex and how I also shorten my name so it is sex-neutral. I shared how doing these things has changed my working experience in terms of how people who do not see or hear me respond to me, mostly because those who are sexist imagine I'm male. I shared that I do not want to use pronouns in my email signature as I do not want to unduly expose myself to sexism when I can avoid it. I also said that I want to be able to talk about and expose sexism in the organisation but am a loss at how to do this when the trust don't seem to think it is important (I shared that my thinking of this comes from them not having sex listed as a protected characteristic). I then went on to share how I suspect a male colleague who holds a role similar to mine and is less experienced gets paid more than me. I also shared an experience of sexual harassment that was swept under the rug (he was given a decent reference as they said he resigned before the formal investigation began, which meant his reference wasn't impacted).
At the beginning of the meeting she did suggest I use 'they/ them' pronouns as a solution to my desire not to signpost my sex and I ignored this at the time. When discussing the sexual harassment claim, I looped back to this comment, telling her that I experienced her suggestion of using 'they/them' pronouns as not dissimilar to claims that the sexual harassment investigation hadn't been formally started - sweeping sexual discrimination issues under the carpet.
By the end of the meeting she was looking very uncomfortable. I think she was equally outraged / conflicted by my crime of centring sex not gender and with the sexual inequality that is clearly alive and present in the organisation.
Before leaving, I pointed out that she hadn't brought forward her item of exploring my lack of engagement in her initiatives but if/when EDI initiatives about sex-based issues are put in to place, she can count me in.
To be honest, I don't think anything will change as a result of this meeting. I have typed up some minutes and shared them with her, and have copied in my line manager. I noted that no actions were agreed but I hoped to see some arising in the future.