Truly awful TRA guidance from the University of Leicester for the heritage sector

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

https://le.ac.uk/rcmg/research-archive/trans-inclusive-culture

In the context of growing uncertainty and anxiety surrounding trans-inclusive practice in the cultural sector, the University of Leicester’s Research Centre for Museums and Galleries (RCMG) – working with a team of legal scholars and experts in inclusion, equality and ethics – has developed comprehensive guidance on advancing trans inclusion for museums, galleries, archives and heritage organisations. The guidance is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council.

Endorsed by the Heritage Lottery Fund

x.com/heritagefunduk/status/1699838523376038176?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

Lol, good luck with that, Sharon.

Thanks, no idea why I didn’t spot the skip button.

I’ve managed to access it now, but with the format they’ve used I’ll have to leave it to the weekend when my eyes are less tired. But at least they’ve got the nine protected characteristics correct in the first couple of pages.

Any chance you can @ the threadreaderapp to syphon off the thread in a readable format? Those of us without x/twitter accounts only get to see the first post on a thread nowadays.

Yes, yes,yes, a million times yes! Unless you're doing a vocational course, surely the only thing from your degree that you carry on doing after graduation is being an independent adult. I would have said critical thinking but obviously that is very much not in vogue.

A great comment on Twitter on the guidance

It's AWFULLY convenient for the museums. Going big on disability requires expensive infrastructure. Going big on race tends to lead to "well, give it back then" conversations. This is just toilet signs, pronoun badges and struggle sessions.

And as another poster points out

There are, according to the Census, less than 100,000 people who call themselves 'trans' - around 0.2 % of the population
On the other hand, around 16m have a disability, including 34000 blind people, 12m deaf/hearing impaired, over a million autistic people.....

But no one cares about disability. Even on MN abolish is rife. May worse by the reality that disabled people are more likely to be older.

In my experience these initiatives in the heritage sector are driven by a small groups of activist types, facilitated by a few do-good allies and everyone else goes along with it because they are not well informed on the issues or too afraid to speak up. Those us of who have spoken up have been largely brushed aside.

Unfortunately the list of signatories does include some heavy hitters, which does not fill me we with optimism. I've had a quick scan though and that guidance is deeply troubling. For example (page 25) they clearly state that trans right are not in conflict with women's rights. The conflation of 'gender non-conformity' with trans is very worrying.

On page 38 they state that recent guidance has said that all toilets with shared wash areas need to be single sex and go straight on to say you should make it clear that people can use they facilities they feel comfortable with. Did anyone even proof read this?!

But at least they’ve got the nine protected characteristics correct in the first couple of pages.

From page 25:
"‘Gender reassignment’ is one of nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 ... The other protected characteristics are age, disability, race, sex (which includes gender), sexual orientation, pregnancy or maternity, marital status or civil partnership, religion or belief"

So the protected characteristic of sex now includes gender apparently

On the toilet issue, page 38:
"If you have toilets with cubicles and shared wash areas, recent guidance stipulates that these need to be single sex. Importantly, make it clear in your signage and communications that all visitors are free to use the facilities that they feel most comfortable using; to insist that a trans person uses a particular bathroom may be unlawful discrimination."

Isn't this directly contradictory? "You need to provide single sex toilets, but don't do this"

Agree with you. But if the Elgin Marbles are returned (legally bought from the then Greek authorities btw) they should be sent in the state they'd have been in if not removed by Elgin, that is, lime dust. Because they would have been destroyed to make lime, which is why Elgin purchased what was left. No-one in Greece at the time seemed to be bothered by this destruction.

That's a good point, I didn't know that.

There's a whole other thread dealing with the Parthenon Frieze. I would very strongly suggest we don't get sidetracked by that here! :-)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4880866-as-ye-sow-so-shall-ye-reap-the-british-museum-the-writhing?page=1

Fair enough. I tried to quote from the guidance but couldn't copy and paste, I wonder if the terrible format is deliberate?

You can click the download button to download as a PDF, which you can copy and paste from (and read without squinting)

I'd be fine if women's history ever got a bit of extra funding and a boost, tbh.

The thing that always strikes me with these documents, along with the legal misrepresentation, partisanship and queerspeak is the sheer infantilisation of trans people. Why do these organisations assume they need to be coddled so much? How many ordinary trans people just want to enjoy culture, art and museums like the rest of us?

Thanks. Have followed that.

You can click the download button to download as a PDF, which you can copy and paste from (and read without squinting)

Thank you! There are some gems in it, am out for the day but will do this later.

Agree and the assumption, which is deeply baked in, that anyone not 1000% on board with trans ideology is a hateful bigot. There are some interesting and pertinent questions used as case studies in the report, but the answers are all about how to minimise and ignore anyone not celebrating everything trans, with a pinch of 'how not to get sued' sprinkled in.
It is a deeply one-sided and disingenuous report and it makes me despair for my sector.

It's interesting that in both this guidance and also the CIPD guidance released in the last few days, we have the same misrepresentation of the protected characteristic relied on in the Forstater case, and the same appeal to the entirely non binding lower court decision for Jaguar Land Rover to claim that the Equality Act is applicable to "non binary" people.

What really concerns me the most though is that Leicester Museum Jobs Desk is the best place to look if you're starting out in heritage sector employment, and students starting out will see this puffed up abomination on the same website and potentially think they need to emulate that opinion to be employable, whether they agree with the content or not. Not that people in entry-level jobs in heritage have any power to challenge the way things are done anyway.

Getting philosophical about this for a moment, one of the central questions in archaeology, which has innumerable answers which are all pertinent to heritage management, is "who owns the past?" and this particular "transing" of the past shows that the people who own and control the past are the same people who own and control the present. It's a microcosm of the disempowerment we are experiencing in so many other areas of our daily lives.

Not wanting to raise an old thread from the dead but there is a new trans inclusion partnership emerging, supported by the Art Fund which appears to want to double down on all this, positioning the SC judgment as creating a hostile environment for Trans people…here’s a quote from the Leicester University website: ‘The partnership initiative, eighteen months in development, has emerged in response to growing recognition of the need for support for cultural organisations as they seek to advance trans inclusion and equity in the context of increasing hostility towards trans people, misinformation around trans lives and a complex and evolving legal landscape. The recent Supreme Court ruling of 16 April has further increased the need for ethical guidance and resources that cultural organisations can use to take forward their commitments to advance equity and foster dignity and respect for trans people.’

So where does this leave the GCs of us working in the arts and museum sector? Does no one remember the Denise Fahmy case? No one is planning to discriminate against trans people who, in my experience, are well represented in the arts sector but this seems designed to whip up a fear frenzy whilst suggesting organisations break the law to be ‘inclusive’. No mention of equity and dignity for women of course…I despair.

How influential is the Leicester research centre in the sector? I assume its basically the department where the postgraduate course is run? If that's right it must be influential through indoctrination I mean trainjng each new cohort of museum professionals. I worked in museums years ago. It was always fairly right-on. But this sounds a bit suffocating.