Work Women's Network

[thelonelyones]

We have a new women's network in our charity organisation with two co-chairs. They have just sent their logo and objectives to a select group of people for feedback. The logo has trans colours and they say the group is for cis-women, non binary and transwomen. (we do actually have a LGBT+ network already).

I am in the group of 8 people who have been asked to review it. Other people in the group include head of HR, head of EDI, Union branch secretary and the chairs of the other staff networks (me and my manager co chair a network for another protected characteristic (he's a practising Christian but no idea if GC)

I don't want to put my job at risk by complaining in this very woke organisation (I do love my job and the flexibility it offers over hours and location). I'm concerned that even doing so anonymously could out me as GC. I'm not in the Union (they are very TWAW anyway). The organistion is not a SW member (yet).

What is the best way to address this? I saw someone say I could get Sex Matters to send information anonymously but how would that work?

Could you suggest that the Women's Network focuses solely on traditional Women's issues - personal safety at night, drink spiking, menstruation and reproductive health issues, pregnancy discrimination, menopause etc and that gender-related issues come under the remit of the LGBTQ Network?

As you were asked do it go on the basis of what are the risks of it going wrong.

Why are they spending employee time on a new resource. The LGBT group do X and Y so there should be no overlap and the new internal group only take on things which are not already covered by an existing group. So T should be already covered as it impacts both TM and TW

As this is a hot topic in the courts at the moment re legal rights and obligations between employer and employee what are the objective of having a new internal mixed sex womans group?

how the organisation is going to manage non-binary men and other men who are under the PC sex who want to join and what about TM and NB women.
That "cis" is a political stance and how is the organisation going to risk manage GC feeling excluded is they have to be "cis"

As an employer how can each employee be assessed as allowed or not allowed as a member
As per AmIjustreallymean's post for each objective how will the organisation deal with a single PC or a group of PC if John NBM from department A is excluded but Jim/Jane TM is included due to biology.

I would just want to know what the goals of the network were. I actually don't want to go anywhere near a group for women's physical issues in the workplace. So maybe it's a group for people who may suffer discrimination due to not being standard men? If so, then it sounds OK (I still wouldn't want to go to it particularly but then it's a long time since I joined anything optional at work).

Oh this is hideous. I’d be furious.

I don’t know if/how the Sex Matters comms would work. Probably the best bet is to compose something for them to send on your behalf and email it to them.

If there are likely to be ongoing issues you might get support from your local Women’s Rights Network or Standing For Women Group.

What’s a ‘standard man’?!

Curious whether you think there are other types of ‘non-standard men’ who should be included in the group, or just the men who think they’re women.

What's the purpose of the network? If it's about e.g. addressing the organisation's gender pay gap then you can point out that data is collected by sex, not gender identity.

As others have said, maybe get them to say what if the purpose of the network? ie they already have the LGBT+ network.

If they think women need their own network then they need to take into account that the protected characteristic is sex, and that the EA allows for single sex provision, which to save overlap and duplication with the LGBT+ network is the obvious are of support that is not being met by a network.

If they then say but those who identify as women in the LGBT+ network need a "women's" space, suggest there is nothing to stop them having a sub group of the LGBT+ one.

They have said the group is for cis-women, non binary and transwomen, but these last two are already catered for. So although I would be loathe to use the phrase, the only ones not being catered for are "cis women".

Presumably somewhere in the charities aims and objectives, or work practices or whatever they outling the function of these networks. And even a network already exists for certain groupings within the organisation, why is another one being created. Assuming this networks happen in paid work time, is it a good use of charitable funds to be spent on organising duplicate networks.

Although in all honesty I cant think of anything less democratic that a self selecting group presuming to organise for a others a network.

In a properly equal workplace there would be an annonymous survey.

You could suggest that given that it is now legally confirmed that women can have "gender critical views" their proposed network contravenes the rights of those women who hold those beliefs. Surely they dont want a court case, not ony by women saying their beliefs are not being respected, but also that senior managers in a charity are abusing their position to impose their personal political beliefs on those junior to them in the work force.

Tell them that including men in their 'women's' group makes it mixed sex and is therefore entirely counterproductive.

Ask them if staff could have a female network with the female symbol and suffragette colours as it's logo to accommodate those under the protected characteristic of sex, separate to male people.

It's about infiltration and validation though. Actual women are apparently not allowed anything without the penis folks 'inclusion' anymore.

They're walking into a hornet's nest aren't they?

I am not a lawyer but ... the two relevant protected characteristics in the 2010 Equality are "gender reasssignment" and "sex". What about transmen?I don't think they can have a group for women that excludes transmen (discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment). And if they include transwomen but not "cis men" then the "cis men" could have cause for complaint.

They need to get some legal advice (proper legal advice not Stonewall-style wishful thinking) because most charities can't afford to be sued.

This is a great opportunity to break out a nice, dispassionate risk assessment.

if you are worried about the genderwoo , then you could make it a more generic ‘protected characteristic working group‘ risk assessment.

id do it on a spreadsheet, lay out each risk, consequence and mitigation strategy.

eg exactly as @AmaryllisNightAndDay suggests… the consequences of allowing anyone who weld identifies as a woman risks excluding trans men. That could be ok, as it is mitigated by having a LGBTQ group. (Ie that’s the mitigation strategy — tell them it’s OK to join, but if they aren’t comfortable, then the TQ club is also available to them). BUT you can raise the risk and consequences of eg a straight bloke taking legal action for discrimination.

I’ve got to say a nice dispassionate risk assessment with loadsof little red }‘high risk‘ scores all over it is a fantastic way of getting management to sit up and take note., without it looking like it’s your opinion.

a nice dispassionate risk assessment with loadsof little red }‘high risk‘ scores all over it is a fantastic way of getting management to sit up and take note

I think in my rambling response some few hours ago this is what I was tryng think of a way of doing.

So think the spread sheet idea is totally apt for these sort of work place scenarios.

And would even suggest it would be possible (for someone with the right skills) to create a template that could be used in different work places with a few minor adjustments.

And then maybe someone could turn it into a sort of snakes and ladders game! Although no doubt it would be banned as being "literal violence".

Sorry OP, not in any way implying what you are having to do (on your own) isn't really hard, but it illustrates what many women isolated in their work place are having to push back against.