Chartered Institute for Personnel - new guidance on Transgender & Belief Manifestation

[MishyJDI]

I found this interesting. Covers the Maya Forstater case on beliefs at work and their manifestation as well as latest guidance from the Chartered Institute of Personnel on trans/non binary accommodations.

Helpful for work considerations on the debate to not fall foul when expressing ones beliefs and concerns.

https://www.cipd.org/uk/about/news/cipd-new-guide-transgender-non-binary-inclusion/

Guide can download here direct link pdf

The Guide

Still looks a bit of a mine-field, but does reassert the protection of thoughts and beliefs! I guess this still needs testing in practice.

Good if all the discrimination against and bullying of, those who know that sex exists, cannot be changed and believes those facts can be important on occasion, stops.

I won’t hold my breath though.

I sincerely hope that it would not be unlawful to "refuse to use the correct pronouns" if that means use sex-based pronouns as I have done since I learned to talk. Who has unilaterally changed the meaning of third person pronouns, and whose consent did they ask? I am distressed when my speech is compelled; the transgender narrative depends on trans people being the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, but ignores the interests of elderly people (like me) and women. Everyone can be vulnerable in some circumstances, and I do not think a hierarchy of disadvantage is an entirely just way of organising society.

"It would be unlawful to misgender someone." How do they know?

That advice is absolutely dreadful, confusing and contradictory.

It says it would be unlawful to deliberately refuse to use the 'correct' pronouns.

What are 'correct' pronouns is a matter of belief.

But we are then told it will be unlawful to discriminate against or harass a colleague for holding those beliefs.

Well both can't be true at the same time.

CNN on the 'Human Rights Campaign' and some pronouns:

https://edition.cnn.com/us/neopronouns-explained-xe-xyr-wellness-cec/index.html

Stonewall’s modus operandi has always been to promote the law they wish to see, rather than the law as it actually stands. They described it themselves as “getting ahead of the law” or something like that. It’s quite possible this document was based on this kind of misinformation.

Yep a lot of holes in it for sure.

So this “guidance” would apply to everyone?

When can we expect to start seeing respect and the manifestation of GI beliefs in a non-discriminatory way from trans activists towards GC people? Soon, I hope….

There is some pragmatic advice that has always applied to prot3cted characteristics, but there is also a very obvious area that has either been overlooked or forgotten. There is no mention of how to manage, support etc. de-transitioner’s.

There are also places where I wanted to add in “like women”. For example not asking in appropriate questions about transition in interviews I.e. just like not asking women about child care, pregnancy, family plans.

Sticking on pronouns, it doesn't give legally secure advice about the difference between polite speech and compelled speech, and how much of the former can reasonably and legally be written into an employer's policies where the employee would, as a result, feel a 'chilling effect'-type compulsion because of their protected beliefs.

People also interpret "misgendering" as saying "so and so is male". It's not always about pronouns. That clearly is not unlawful in and of itself, as the successful claims in the Forstater case and Bailey case show. It's also necessary for women to have single sex spaces, the provision of which is clearly lawful.

Linking in the earlier thread on this www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4888364-cipd-new-transnb-inclusion-guide

It's not often that I am grateful to be medically retired, but at least I no longer have to put up with this batshittery. Especially as I was a member of a very Woke profession.

Told my boss earlier this week that I don't want to do the CIPD qualifications that would greatly help in my role. This is why. I didn't tell her that though.

Hi @MishyJDI , thanks for posting. Although there's a duplicate thread it's good to have this perspective.

Helpful for work considerations on the debate to not fall foul when expressing ones beliefs and concerns.

Unfortunately, the two different beliefs (sex immutability and gender identity) are positioned completely differently. Sex immutability is expressed as a belief that some people legally hold (correct), using the definition of "gender critical" in the glossary but then the whole of the rest of the document goes on to suppose that the world at large believes in gender identity. It's a very skewed representation of two beliefs. Even the definition of the word "sex" talks about it being assigned at birth. The result is that anyone who doesn't believe in gender identity becomes the equivalent of the "unsaved" in the Bible.
I can appreciate the sentiment that it does attempt to strike some balance but it comes across as a very biased document which is heavily pushing one belief. The gender identity bible of HR.

Or to borrow James Esses' words:

It is disingenuous and sly.

The concept of biological sex is described by CIPD as a “belief”.

However, ‘trans’ is defined as “someone whose gender is not the same as the sex they were assigned at birth”.

Why is biological reality a belief but gender ideology a fact?

He also goes on to point out lots of other things in it, like the advice that people in the workplace should use the bathroom of their choice.

He also makes a good point that:
Shockingly, they misrepresent the law. They state: “it would be unlawful to deliberately misgender someone”.

Not true. Forstater says nothing about circumstances in which misgendering will amount to harassment. This is for a Tribunal to determine on the facts of a case.
Even though CIPD attempt to back both horses, they are complicit in diluting the concept of biological sex and what it means to be a woman

Link to his tweet:
https://twitter.com/JamesEsses/status/1699132153387245588?t=Fx42_hVWmn5qNMLpRfFAzQ&s=19

I do think it's progress that they even feel they have to acknowledge the legal protection for GC beliefs.

I started this thread, about some guidance with a very similar (suspiciously so) tone which came out in the last couple of days for the heritage sector.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4890373-truly-awful-tra-guidance-from-the-university-of-leicester-for-the-heritage-sector

Very true about the progress @Ereshkigalangcleg

However, call me a cynic but since I saw the tactics that Peter Wilby used to sound just reasonable enough to slip in the takeaway message that suspected paedophiles were probably innocent, my radar for this style of writing seems to have notched up in its calibration.

The implicit message in this one being that those GC folk need to be tolerated from a "they have a belief" perspective, but don't let that distract you from being the HR professional that really understands what's going on.

Reading Wilby's previous articles (deleted and only available where archived now), it's a style that worked effectively for years.

Just to add, I would have no issue with it if it positioned gender identity belief with the same balance. It could point out that gender identity belief isn't protected by law - although that would need to be handled carefully so as not to bring in bias the other way.
The other key thing it needs to do is then counter each gender identity belief that it cites with the equivalent in the "sex is immutable" belief, and then signpost correctly to the relevant parts of the Equality Act.
As things stand ATM it is prioritising one belief over another. Which is presumably unlawful.

Deliberately misgender someone: what is misgendering? If I call a transwoman a transwoman and not a woman?
Using the incorrect pronouns: if I use those of someone's sex, that is not incorrect according to my beliefs. Do they mean that?
Revealing private information: so if I say a male coworker is using the female changing room (we have a gym at my office) and I call him out on that, am I revealing 'personal information'?

It reads like a 'compromise' that in reality gives all the power to the T

This is like the batshit one the other day about 'you must provide single sex spaces AND you must permit people with special genders to use whatever facility they want' as if this made some kind of rational sense. As opposed to yet again putting the wishes of T male people above basic equality of accessibility for women.

If a woman cannot use a mixed sex space, she has to be able to say, without fear of reprisals or being accused of 'hate', that this IS a mixed sex space and she needs an accessible space please, because the reality is, however little that male person wishes to hear this, they are male. And not have her access stymied or be expected to suffer quietly because it's regarded as worse for her to jar a male person's belief in their womanhood than for an actual woman to not be able to use the toilet.

'Not misgendering' has its limits. And it is still, bluntly, requiring a person to participate in a belief system compliantly for the benefit of the believer, in contradiction to their own beliefs.

This is like demanding that others may be atheist privately but not upset believers by declining to genuflect and pray at work, or mentioning their own beliefs. And it continues to frame the believers as right and just with no responsibilities to others, and holders of other beliefs as transgressors and lesser than the believers, with all the responsibilities.

No. Trans people (or rather the trans political lobby because it's not the same thing at all) have to cope with the idea that other people have lives, rights, thoughts, too. This can all exist in parallel, but non trans people are not service units. And decent people would not wish for colleagues' rights and equality to be destroyed in their interests.

This is like the batshit one the other day about 'you must provide single sex spaces AND you must permit people with special genders to use whatever facility they want' as if this made some kind of rational sense. As opposed to yet again putting the wishes of T male people above basic equality of accessibility for women.

If a woman cannot use a mixed sex space, she has to be able to say, without fear of reprisals or being accused of 'hate', that this IS a mixed sex space and she needs an accessible space please, because the reality is, however little that male person wishes to hear this, they are male. And not have her access stymied or be expected to suffer quietly because it's regarded as worse for her to jar a male person's belief in their womanhood than for an actual woman to not be able to use the toilet.

Yes, exactly.

It's not criminally unlawful but it sounds like if your employer asked you not to do this at work and you refused, they would have cause to legally dismissed you.