The woke roll back continues

[Hoardasurass]

Jack Daniels has ditched all it's woke policies and it's lgbtq equality index membership

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/22/jack-daniels-owner-scraps-diversity-targets-amid-anti-woke/

DEI is working well in my organisation though there is still work to be done, of course.

This goes without saying. The DEI industry is worth $$$$$. There will always be work to be done.

Well - there are also studies showing that there are people in healthcare who believe Black people are more able to tolerate pain and these attitudes have contributed to worse outcomes. A famous example include Serena Williams suffering a pulmonary embolism during childbirth and not being listened to.

And research not being inclusive is part of the problem. When it is - then research questions that matter to all communities can be prioritised. For example, there are many calls for inclusive research into things like the Apgar score - which flags when a newborn is at risk but still includes 'skin colour - blue or pale' - which obviously are not assessable in that way in Black babies.

So listening and further research are needed - the two are not mutually exclusive. We need research to drive understanding and we need research leadership to be inclusive to make that happen. The MRC and NIHR have accepted this and created streams of research funds to break down barriers and identify future research leaders from all backgrounds. Denial helps no one

Ridiculous comments suggesting listening precludes a focus on research are not helpful. Not only are they not true - they actually misinform the public!

A few years ago I mentioned my research into pulmonary embolism, race and ethnicity and was shouted down and accused of racism. If you can't properly identify who is at greater risk, you can't put strategies in place to make a difference.

Race and ethnicity classifications are not grounded in science or biology and are not valid indicators for any biological differences between people (such as feeling pain, as described below). This is factual and something everyone should know as a starting point for any discussion.

Race and ethic classifications can be useful for exploring social issues and experience, but nothing more.

I think the primacy currently given to identity leads to people thinking identity is a determinate of much more than it actually is.

"A few years ago I mentioned my research into pulmonary embolism, race and ethnicity and was shouted down and accused of racism. If you can't properly identify who is at greater risk, you can't put strategies in place to make a difference."

It's ancestry that impacts biological differences, not race or ethnicity.

It was a really well designed audit that looked at every possible risk factor in women who developed PE in pregnancy and post partum. Ante natal screening and prevention programmes were improved as a result.You have to look at everything in case you miss something important.

I will have a look at that paper, though not right now - but I am not sure why you wouldn't just answer the question.

Because actually, yes, it is about convincing people. If people think your method is ideologically biased and not supported by the data, they aren't going to support your DEI approaches, are they?

And they will be happy to see them go.

Quite a lot of people have become cynical about this because they have seen it at work in their own workplaces and that it has been either ineffective, or worse, unfair.. And also the kind of funding it seems to eat up, which is then not available for other things, and isn't a small amount of money in organizations either. It's a huge industry with a lot of people who really want it to continue.

I am old enough to remember helping with data collection around cervical cancer back in the 1980s. We asked women what their partner's job was. The rationale being that there might have been a connection with industrial or farming chemicals. A lot of women got very offended and refused to answer that question. In the end it didn't matter, but nobody knew what they were looking for at that time.

This is a problem that stems out of the whole concept of systemic racism because people think it's a cause in itself, rather than a kind of generalized description of a set of actual, concrete causes.

And DEI is often quite shit for the same reason, they go on about systemic racism in the NHS, say, but don't actually look at the concrete causes - which exist if the phenomena is happening. Things don't happen without a cause.

Is it because of class differences, or individuals discriminating, or different cultural approaches to work for women? Are there confounding factors like age (which can be a significant one with race disparities.) There are all kinds of possibilities, but it's important to know which is relevant.

It's a lot like the concept of patriarchy in feminism, it tends to disguise the concrete causes, so people talk about it as if it's a thing out there by itself, acting on people.

I was worried that the backlash against the crazy TRAs would draw in and penalise other groups.

Many DEI initiatives have been hideously skewed towards the trans in recent years. Companies have adopted this for a range of reasons, including that this involves bugger all investment beyond marketing.

We still need DEI but we need sensible actions that support people in meaningful ways. This is more expensive for employers and brings less kudos than pretty flags.

This is true and ancestry and race are often used interchangeably though they mean different things.

Genetic differences (linked to ancestry) can influence how we metabolise drugs for instance - meaning some treatments work better on some than others. An example is people of Bangladeshi origin many of whom are not able to metabolise clopidogrel - which is commonly used to prevent secondary Cardiovascular events. Prescribing this treatment enmasse without this knowledge meant some heart attacks that may have been prevented weren't and the drug cost is wasted.

Or the fact that women metabolise some drugs differently to men and therefore outcomes can be different and without involving more women in research - health outcomes for women are negatively impacted

Etc etc

This is why inclusive Research teams and inclusive research designs are critical

Well I would say that ancestry is what ethnicity means. Your ethnicity is a description of who your ancestors were.

Race is not a useful scientific category really.

Although there are practical elements with a medical practitioner dealing with darker skinned patients which are relevant to teach, though that tends to happen naturally where there is a fair mix in the population.

It's not just the TRA stuff though. People are also very cynical and unhappy with a lot of the racial elements. Just look at where it has gone in the US - that's where DEI comes from and that's the trajectory.

Well this is why the data needs to be gathered and analysed rigorously and robustly. And when that has been done and evidence is found (after taking into account confounders), then solutions need to be devised. That is not the time for whataboutery or denial

Data is data - after you have analysed it and found significant correlations that remain significant after controlling for other contributors or even just identified contributors - then yes, it is time for action.

The issue in healthcare ( possibly also elsewhere but don't know much about the data elsewhere) is that we now have the data in some areas that clearly demonstrates inequity but we have not utilised robust implementation science methodology to address them.

So figuring out how to solve the problem is where we are. This is why you will not see any leader in the NHS saying racism does not exist or is not systematic. They may say the current solutions are duff - and I can't argue with that because I do not think they have been scientifically assessed or evaluated but not that it does not exist. Because if you are in the system - it is pretty glaring and the cost is immense. Both for staff and patients and infact - society at large.

Last example - correlation between long waiting list (contributed to by staff off sick with stress from bullying and harrassment) and reduced economic productivity.

The US had racial quotas for its top academic institutions in a way that we never did. Agree we're getting some of their backlash but generally not for things UK companies have been doing.

Heaven knows there's enough sexism and racism here to tackle, it doesn't help if we judge US activities and superimpose that analysis on our problems.

Or the fact that women metabolise some drugs differently to men and therefore outcomes can be different and without involving more women in research - health outcomes for women are negatively impacted

...

This is why inclusive Research teams and inclusive research designs are critical.

But if the research / data counts biological men as women in the name of "inclusivity", then it will be useless.

It does not happen naturally. It really does not. London has a population of almost 50% people of darker skin tones - yet the recognition of disease in these skin tones is recognised to be abysmal.

Examples include Black babies being diagnosed as cyanotic when that is just what their lips look like when first born. In London.

It was only in 2020 that a move has been made to address this in medical school curriculums.

The DEI issue in the States is down to White males who feel their privilege is threatened by the support being given to others. That is understandable - if the pot is finite and we are talking about better access for others - ultimately it will translate to less access for them or their offspring. Doesn't mean equity is not a worthy goal - it is and will always be. Those that inequity favors will have to accept that status quo is changing. Uncomfortable truth

The DEI issue in the States is down to White males who feel their privilege is threatened by the support being given to others.

This is the biggest load of bs I've seen for a while, and if you believe that I really have no reason to give any credence to any other parts of your analysis.

In clinical research- biological men are not counted as women. That would not be inclusive. The genetic drivers have not changed because of how you identify.

However I can see areas where there may be issues. Eg a dermatology study where you are not doing any genetic testing and a biological man ticks female and the researcher agrees because they do look female and present as female.

More studies are breaking this down further so participants can tick the various gender options so the research is robust and accurate

I agree. But also the US history with slavery and segregation, where Black women were not allowed to vote till 1965, where Black people could not get fair access to mortgages till 1968, could not attend the same school or university as White people until the 60s - means all of these issues of oppression are relatively recent and these students were starting from a very depressed starting point. Affirmative action was an effort to even begin to address those issues.

In the recent supreme court ruling, they acknowledged this was the initial basis of the race-based quota provision in the 1970s which was due to end in 2028 anyway.
This is not the case in the UK - so trying to follow what happens in the US is not useful here

It gets tricky when nhs records, birth certificate and passport are all altered from male to female. Clinical audits are usually done using records, not face to face. I am glad I am long retired.

In clinical research- biological men are not counted as women. That would not be inclusive. The genetic drivers have not changed because of how you identify.

It's just a matter of time...

https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/health/victorian-government-accused-of-insulting-women-with-inclusive-approach-to-pain-study-seeking-input-from-biological-males/news-story/d5e2346b1be14f9a6594dcc1380bee75

100% there was an article in the lancet a few years ago that was a study on women*

*and those who identify as women.

fucking terrible data collection obviously.

Indeed - these are real issues that need addressing. They is work to try and correctly classify including binary etc. But unfortunately, many opt out....

HR as a profession is somewhat prone to fads - the CIPD’s Personnel Today in the UK and the Harvard Business Review in the USA are always publishing articles on the latest studies and developments that could potentially revolutionise HR and make organisations see the value in having HR with a seat at the table. Some of it is sensible, some of it is pure spin created to ensure that HR execs can justify their salaries, and some of it is overcomplicating things with theory and/or ideology that should be practical.