Disappointed with our new head of DEI

[Ingenieur]

We've just got a new head of DEI at work, and he gave a company-wide presentation regarding his agenda over the next few years.

Among the usual stuff you'd expect, there was no mention of sex as something worthy of discussion (in fact no mention at all of sex). A colleague asked why sex wasn't being addressed at all, only gender, as sex is the principal vector of discrimination, to which the DEI head responded:

Sex is being addressed as we capture this data for everyone as a mandatory HMRC requirement, and are beholden to the Equality Act 2010 under which sex is a protected characteristic. However, sex is a narrow biological category rooted in genitalia and chromosomes. It is less useful as a frame of reference for understanding and discussing human behaviour and experience than gender which, although often (not always) directly influenced by birth assigned sex, refers to the roles, norms, behaviours and relationships associated with masculinity and femininity - which are socially (rather than biologically) constructed. Sharing my response here, but happy to pick the conversation up further offline

I feel like my company, by ignoring sex, is creating a huge blind spot and it's made me a bit sad. They're also applying to become Stonewall diversity champions, which is nice...

This has made me really angry: an explicit dismissal of one of the protected characteristics that subsumes it into another with which it, arguably, conflicts. I'd say this is grounds for complaint, although whether or not you want to go there is another matter entirely! But the arrogance of

"sex... is less useful as a frame of reference for understanding and discussing human behaviour and experience than gender"

is astonishing. I think the word "privilege" is too liberally, carelessly and sometimes cynically used (and abused) nowadays, but this is something that I find it hard to imagine a woman writing.

I'd be tempted to reply...

Dear...

I was concerned to read your assertion that "sex... is less useful as a frame of reference for understanding and discussing human behaviour and experience than gender". In the light of this, I am writing to seek your assurances that our company remains committed to the letter and spirit of the Equality Act 2010, and associated values.

In summary, your email appears to privilege one legally protected characteristic ("gender [reassignment]") over another ("sex"). This seems incompatible with the Equality Act [quote from Act if possible - don't know it well enough?], which establishes that no single protected characteristic takes precedence over, or subsumes, another. I would be grateful if you would clarify company policy on this.

If the intention of your email was, rather, to make a distinction between legally protected characteristics (which the company upholds), and a "frame of reference" (which it applies), I'd appreciate clarification on the following points: firstly, how privileging a "[more useful] frame of reference" for assessing "behaviour and experience" can be reconciled with the Equality Act; secondly, how such a "frame of reference" would be applied in practice.

Lastly, I would appreciate your assurances that the company recognises that the interrelationship of sex and gender is a complex political issue, and refrains from partisanship. For many of your female employees, the assertion that gender is "more useful" overall will be difficult to reconcile withtheir own lived experience of, for example, periods, pregnancy, breast-feeding, maternity leave, abortion, endometriosis, menopause, and greater physical vulnerability to rapeand domestic violence. There is ample statistical evidence in support of this perspective. I would be grateful if you could clarify that you recognise its validity, and such employees will not be negatively impacted by your recent statement.

Best wishes,

...

I wouldn't even deal with the guy himself, I'd write to HR and say you are deeply concerned that the newly recruited male head of DEI has just dismissed the relevance of sex as a protected characteristic and ask how women are supposed to have any confidence that he can do the job properly.

He's saying basically that if women behaved more like men they would have no problem in the workplace. Good to know that when I lost work in pregnancy it was my own fault for womaning too much.

Presumably your employer hired this bozo in the hope of reducing their legal risks so a bit of a fuck up there. Has his terrible response been circulated widely or sent only to your colleague?

Agree "beholden" is rather telling. Also, I could be wrong but I don't think HMRC requires collection of data on sex which suggests he really doesn't know what he is doing. Pay gap reporting is enforced by the EHRC but I guess it suits him to dismiss it as something imposed by the tax man (who no one likes anyway).

Do you have the ear of anyone senior? I'd be having an informal chat about whether this person knows his arse from his elbow.

Thanks @Catiette that's an excellent letter, I'll mull it over and see how I might proceed.

@Bleepbloopbluurp

I'm not certain how protected I might be if I pushed back too hard. A senior director responsible for my department has been all over Linkedin saying how great it is to put pronouns on your emails.

It's crap because on everything else he's a chilled and sensible guy, but obviously has drunk the Kool Aid.

There is also a reasonably influential LGBTQ+ society, with some noisy non-binary women and young gay men therein who also support a move toward more gender diversity (not sex).

Do please use/adapt the letter if you like. I wrote it in part to assuage my own frustration. But would love to know the response. I think your original quote was an appaling(ly naive!) thing for him to put in writing. Besides our ethical concerns, a HR pro who’s prepared to debate the relative merits of PCs is not someone I’d want safeguarding employees & - HR‘s main function, after all! - the business‘s rep!

Hi everyone, I thought I'd make a short update to this post, and to give a little hope to those in a similar position.

As a recap, my company has a strong LGBTQ+ lobby, including quite a few gender-fluid and NB identifying influencers, and a new head of DEI has been brought on board and is pushing gender ideology, alongside the other IDpol talking points.

Following the presentation I arranged a meeting with one of the senior partners at the firm and we managed to sit down together earlier this week.

We spoke at length about the impact of the various DEI initiatives, and how it is necessary to balance a number of rights while aiming to be a welcoming environment.

The partner agreed that it is important to maintain diversity of thought and opinion, in addition to the other characteristics, and recognises that more consideration is needed where rights might conflict, and acknowledged that my concerns do not come from hatred, but a desire to protect our existing hard-fought rights.

It was also stated that I wasn't the only one with concerns, so I'm now trying to figure out how to subtly find out who they might be!

I think it went as well as I could reasonably have hoped, and I wasn't called a bigot or a TERF, but was given the chance to express my concerns. So we'll see how things go in the future.

Thanks again to everyone for your help, you've all been wonderful.

That's very encouraging.

For identifying others, perhaps a set of small dinosaur pins in purple, white and green?

Haha, I've always wanted an excuse to wear a dinosaur pin

Or if you work in the sort of place that has a Christmas jumper day: https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1344312334/sweatshirt-5109-tree-rex-christmas-tree?

@fedupandstuck words are powerful..

If I had the freedom to reply.. I might start with...

It is your opinion that women are discriminated against because they are feminine, rather than because of their reproductive role and biological differences with men. I profoundly disagree with this point of view and regard it as sexist in itself.

If we were to follow this to it's logical conclusion, by breaking down socially constructed stereotypes, would eliminate discrimination against women, would see women equally represented in place of power, share equal access to wealth and have equal share of voice in all areas.

How do you definition of feminine? Do you believe that the roles, norms, behaviours and relationships associated with masculinity and femininity are freely chosen or contracted by society - if so, do you believe that women are free to choose those roles, norms and behaviours?

There are many women who believe that those characteristics associated with gender are imposed and cannot be identified out of, that position of not believing in gender identity is protected and should not be ignored as part of DEI.

We are 'beholden' to HMRC and the Equality Act of 2010 and before we decide that sex is not a useful frame of reference, we should at the very least, consult with the 50% of the population, under represented at the higher levels of this organisation, before we dispense with it, or push it aside.

I'm glad you've had a reasonable hearing, with your concerns taken apparently seriously. That's really encouraging.

It's mind bendingly frustrating, isn't it. If we were, for a moment, to agree without question that a trans man is a man - does that mean they are no longer protected from being discriminated against because of their biological sex?! That if they were to become pregnant that they were at no risk of maternity related discrimination?! Of course it doesn't! Utter tripe...

@BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn

Awesome jumper, I may pick one up. Is it quite subtle enough, though? 😉

Maternity is separate from sex discrimination (at least in theory) so pregnant trans men would be covered under that.

Good update, OP. I wonder if they realise how they actually treat same-sex attracted people?

It is your opinion that women are discriminated against because they are feminine, rather than because of their reproductive role and biological differences with men.

Although this is true, the more woolly-minded reader might then think 'reproductive role' means you are saying 'all women want to be mothers and AHHHH what about those that don't or can't? That as good as proves it, sex is meaningless'. You would probably need to rather tediously clarify something like 'their biological differences from men and the potential, or perceived potential, to hold a reproductive role in society'.

And back to the original OP:
* It is less useful as a frame of reference for understanding and discussing human behaviour and experience than gender which, although often (not always) directly influenced by birth assigned sex, refers to the roles, norms, behaviours and relationships associated with masculinity and femininity*

I can't quite decipher, and would be interested to know, if he is saying he uses masculinity and femininity as the lens through which he understands people and their behaviour? That seems rather quaint (at best) and bigoted at worst. Does he presume certain skills and characteristics correlate with whatever he considers masculine or feminine people?

Does he presume certain skills and characteristics correlate with whatever he considers masculine or feminine people?

That is an excellent question.

Maternity is separate from sex discrimination (at least in theory) so pregnant trans men would be covered under that.

I know, but it specifies a pregnant 'woman' is protected, which is what I was trying to say (not well, I admit, because I was very irritated! ) - under his assertions about gender, someone with a man gender who is pregnant is presumably not covered by that, in his head, because their sex never matters?!

I think it comes down to: your DEI bloke can't just decide that one of the protected characteristics isn't important. If he does that, he's opening the company up for sex discrimination cases.

It sounds like he's already said enough to put them in dodgy territory. They need to see that he's a liability.

Sex is a protected characteristic. He might think he knows better, but women fought for decades against men who opposed legislation against sex discrimination. He's just a new generation of the same with fancy language.

Can those fair play documents be sent to the DEI plus his manager, others in top leading roles and HR. Some people wrongly assume that stonewall will develop and represent legislation. They may assume this man is really in the know and be blindly following him.

It was good to have the update, @Ingenieur - I'm glad you felt you could pursue it and it went well.