Helen Joyce asks very pertinent questions about SEEN.

[Omlettes]

I share her concerns and questions, because we are creating more and more special interest groups without knowing how they operate , what they do, and what will be their future motivations.
Particularly in the police.

"What can the newly founded SEENs (Sex Equality and Equity Networks) learn from the history of workplace affinity groups?"
https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-89/

Ofgs what a childishly conspiratorial take and troublemaking thing to say.

The points she raises are very sensible.
Furthemore they do completely different things.
For Women Scotland Marion Calder has adressed potential mission creep in her org
Its happened across the board.

I have read it, and it appears to be an extended non sequitur.

She begins by saying there are 2 types of affinity groups (those set up and funded by an employer, and grassroots ones set up independently by employees). She then goes on to talk in detail about the problems of the first type (and favelas, for some reason) before throwing in a couple of unconnected paragraphs at the end about SEEN, which is the other type.

Well, I don't know. They have some similarities with unions, I think, conceptually.

Imagine for example if they were given some kind of negotiating power, or mediating power?

It's hard to say how they could develop.

Of course they are an institution, they have a structure, a mandate or mission, a role, all of which are defined.

HJ isn't criticizing what SEEN is doing. She's looking at the potential consequences of these kinds of groups in workplaces.

Helen Joyce doesn't understand SEEN networks because she's never had to work in a normal job, she just floats about as part of the feminist intelligentsia. The idea that ordinary women meet without her causes her much offence I'm sure

I think over a decade as a journalist for the Economist is pretty normal? As for the notion she is offended by "ordinary" women meeting causing her offence-utter bollocks-unless you have proof to the contrary.

Working for a decade at the Economist for a decade is normal? I'd love to go to your dinner parties, bet they're a lot more interesting than mine.
Most people don't even read the Economist, let alone write for it (shocking, I know).
She has no idea what my working life is like, but she's happy to opine on it= feminist intilliegentsia

Oops I said decade twice, sorry.

OP, what points do you think Helen is making here that you agree with?

The bit about favelas was interesting but completely & bizarrely irrelevant unless she thinks that middle aged feminists are going to start meting out punishment beatings at work. I thought the article seemed mean-spirited about unpaid women banding together to give each other confidence to speak up in a scary world. I don’t see any end to this fight so worrying about what will happen when it is won seems a bit premature.

Genderism is never going away. Even if we roll back stuff like threat to single sex spaces the concept of not being part of the boring old genders instead being a NB or something else is too attractive to get rid of.

It is like saying astrology, or religion is going in modern world. Nope there are too many people into it now. Genderism is basically a variant on new age beliefs only like if we said you have to respect the ideas of the person who believes in crystals in work and put lumps of quartz everywhere.

So we need SEEN networks like we would need atheist groups in work if religion started being more powerful in the uk again.

So yes SEEN networks could go rogue, but we need them as a counterbalance especially in healthcare or education areas.

How perfectly put. You have summed up in two sentences what is killing the Arts right now. And publishing.

This is fascinating - how are the people in the SEEN networks able to boost their credibility and legacy from being completely anonymous?

I read it, she’s effectively being hypocritical over ‘unelected’ activists being able to work away, out of sight, claiming legitimacy via the SEEN set up, with no accountability or oversight over what they’re doing, and whether there’s any actual benefit for the cause they claim to represent, or consensus from the cohort they’re acting for. Sounds familiar to me. 🤔

Let me see - WPUK, Sex Matters, FPFW, LGBA, For Women Scotland. All work along the same lines. I wonder why Helen suddenly thinks this model is ‘problematic’? 🤨

When the 'grassroots' women's orgs engage with the fact they don't have anything like consensus, or democratic principles to enact their own agenda or ideas, which they claim is on behalf of women, maybe Helen's point will have more weight. But I don't think trying to undermine something that is filling the gap in the workplace that unions were effectively supposed to operate is entirely altruistic in this case, where women are being treated appallingly, while being the Director of Advocacy of Sex Matters - itself an org without democratic input from women/members, and no idea of its advocacy enjoys widespread consensus or support from women.

Given SM's over stepping on Justice & Prisons, to the point Keep Prisons Single Sex disbanded, I think it's rich to start going after another set up, still pretty much in its infancy & building up a way to tackle the issues women in various workplaces are facing, where unions are complicit & their jobs are at risk if they speak up. Staff Networks are very much embedded within many orgs - mine has several, and not many me of them advocate for women. 'All genders' yes. Women? Nope.

What next? Hitting the Repeal The GRA momentum? 🤨

🎯

Stick another arrow in that bullseye from me @GrumpyMenopausalWombWielder - great post.

She was trying to give an example of parallel power structures and how they operate.

Not that women in the workplace are going to start beating people up.

SEEN isn't just about women, though. Men also have rights to single-sex spaces and initiatives just for them (like paternity leave). The group in my workplace have male and female members.

They challenge things like the creep of 'gender-neutral' language in policy, for example the removal of the words 'woman' and 'mother' from the maternity leave policy, the removal of the word 'woman' from the menopause policy. The replacement of 'sex' with the word 'gender' in all policies, especially if they are misquoting the Equality Act.

There is a push to change maternity leave to 'shared parental leave', which ignores the physical reality of women giving birth and needing time to establish breastfeeding (if chosen) and recovery from birth injuries. We have generous maternity leave provision, but if it becomes policy that it's half and half between parents, because half of it needs to go to the father, it could end up with reduced provision for the mother, who arguably needs it more.

Our senior 'champion' was horrified to discover that we expected her to give SEEN the same level of support and cheerleading that she gave to the LGBTQIA+ staff networks, and declined to act for us, saying it would be a conflict of interests (yes, really!). It's an uphill struggle and we are terrified of being disciplined or even taken to court for believing that humans come in two sexes and sometimes that's important.

Helen Joyce and Maya Forstator commented on my SEEN badge when I met them ☺️

Just to be clear -I don't think she is actually singling out SEEN in particular.

It's about the whole structure of these kinds of networks in the workplace, and what kinds of power they have or can have.

In the example of a pp, if a manager is giving all kinds of special support to the LGBTQ+ group, is that actually a good thing? Maybe, if that group is dealing with some discriminatory issue. Maybe not if they just get to set the agenda of what the company needs to do in terms of supporting political causes, or saying they get to define the direction for the companies social policies around sexuality and gender.

Is the way to keep groups in the workplace in balance really setting them up into interest groups to each try and get what they can, or implement what they want?

How many employees won't have a natural interest group to advocate for them? (Will they set up a straight white men group? What about a group for Christian employees, or obese employees - the potential list seems endless.)

Will any of this result in reasonable HR policies?

Interesting, thank you. the key point for me is that employers need to take responsibility for the environment they create for their employees, and, a point HJ makes, understand that advocacy groups are likely to have conflicts of interest.

Staff networks are a bit of a new one for me, having recently moved from a very red in tooth and claw capitalist private company (here's your job: take it or leave it) to a company in receipt of large amounts of public funds that has these kinds of networks, and I can really see the value.

Our front line staff are primarily skilled physical workers, and are also primarily white middle aged men.

This leaves us with a big problem as white middle aged men are a limited resource, and have a habit of getting older and retiring. The women we have in post are great at their jobs and we could do with more, but I suspect most young women would look at our vacancies and just think 'not for me'. The women's network could really help to change that.

We do have an LGBTQ+ network, and they do peddle a bit of trans nonsense, but thankfully the Leadership have been too sensible so far to give it the kind of power that would make a SEEN necessary. There is a need for advocacy for gay people in the organisation as well.

The whole thing is very tricky!

This is a great post.

A lot of SEEN members, as far as I can see, are motivated to join these groups not just because of employment protection but because they believe that genderism has the potential to cause harm to service users / to the work the institutions are set up to do. And they don't want to just put their head down and keep quiet to keep their job because they know harm to end users will result.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in healthcare and in safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults.

Puberty blockers - prescribed because of activist demands without any evidence base - are the tip of the iceberg of the herms of genderism. The destruction of safeguarding IS happening NOW because of genderism. SEEN are set up in part to enable practictioners - social workers, civil servants, HCPs, teachers - to say, without fear of bullying or losing their job, THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE BASED. This is outside the normal professional practice of decades.

In healthcare the way gender confused children has been treated is a scandal. Totally outside of the norms of evidence-based ethical medicine.

To criticise SEEN and engage in a thought experiment about how they might go wrong in a mythical future is ignoring the need for them due to these very real harms RIGHT NOW.

It might have been more useful to not bring SEEN into it at all but focus on these real harms that come from ideology over evidence in the workplace.

To criticise SEEN and engage in a thought experiment about how they might go wrong in a mythical future is ignoring the need for them due to these very real harms RIGHT NOW.

It might have been nice if people who set up things like the GRA, or human rights tribunals, or a number of other things, had spent time early on thinking about what the long term outcomes might be, what these things could morph into, or how they could be used by bad actors.

This desire to just look at the right now is not great in lawmaking and policy.

It’s a long article, which doesn’t come to the point with any great speed.and isn’t particularly succinct.

Perhaps, if you feel she’s made some great points, you could summarize so that we can discuss them. If you can’t summarize, then it suggests she hasn’t made any great points.

I can’t see how SEEN is, in any way like Stonewall. I joined the civil service and looked through the available groups and joined SEEN alongside another group which shares pictures of their dogs. Civil service SEEN isn’t a charity or an external lobbyist, like Stonewall. It’s a group people working in a certain sector can join as it’s something they share an interest in.

Maya Forstater established that holding certain beliefs and stating them is not illegal. Despite that, individuals are afraid to speak out, due to the potential negative consequences. As far as I can see, SEEN’s reason for being is to establish a visible group, where those who are willing and able to speak out can do so, knowing they have the support of those who don’t feel ready or able to risk it.

Once we can speak out without being persecuted, then SEEN will no longer be needed.

Of course, mission creep can occur, as we see with Stonewall, but equally, as we see with Suffragists/ettes, it is equally possible for groups that form in order to achieve a single aim can stop, once they have achieved their goal. I suspect there will have been groups formed within companies or other groups, where like minded women came together to work towards women getting the vote.

So if Helen Joyce makes a particular point about why SEEN is particularly problematic, please bring it to us. Is she criticising SEEN itself, or is it the structure of such groupings that she has a problem with? If it’s the latter, then to single out SEEN is not reasonable.

So, Omelettes, if she made a good point that you understood fully, then you should easily be able to explain it. Most women on here come with open minds and are willing to view arguments and work out how they feel about any problems raised. The ball is in your court.

Sex Matters aren't law makers though, they're a lobby group that hasn't even achieved their primary goal yet, maybe their focus should be about that.

Policy makers should still put out the fire while the building is burning before thinking about future fire proofing.

Children are being harmed. Healthcare is being compromised. Right now.

And the parallel I see with Stonewall / LGBTQ+ lobby groups is Sex Matters, not SEEN. I have already wondered if they'll shut up shop if single sex protections are won in law, clearly and unambiguously. It'd be interesting to see HJ write an article about that much more obvious parallel.