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/

Yes, the difference between public and private sectors, or between in-house organisations and industry-wide ones will make a massive difference.

We all need to get better at reflexive, self critical analysis, imo.

It's not a bad thing. Test things out, look for weak spots, unintended consequences.

Philosophically it's an interesting question - always come back to Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

Blind spots are unspottable by definition - is there a way to guard against that?

And at the end of the day it all comes down to power. And money will follow that, too.

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.

The great and the good at Sexmatters are far too comfy in their full-time paid positions to consider changing the status quo let alone winning anyting in law in the future.

Did we get an answer? Would be great to know what "very pertinent questions" Helen Joyce is asking here.

You're misrepresenting what Helen Joyce said for your own disingenuous ends.

I take massive exception to those criticising SEEN, having seen the price that was paid by the first SEEN group I was aware of, the MOD, where people lost their jobs and were threatened for proposing to form a group to counterbalance the captured DEI department. I know people who contemplated suicide after what happened when they dared to poke their heads above the parapet. One of my contacts took a file of damning evidence to MOD HR who agreed that she had more than enough material to win an Employment Tribunal. She was then threatened by managers and DEI leaders who said they'd give her five years of hell if she instituted an ET. She worked in cyber security: she knew what they could do. She was nearly driven to a nervous breakdown but managed to set up SEEN in the MOD before leaving and finding work elsewhere. I'm furious to think that her bravery, and that of her colleagues, would be described as self-serving.

Just musing here - I have not made my mind up about any of this...

The bit about favelas was relevant as a different example of "separate policing". Of course in the workplace, that would not be selling drugs and physical violence but making and enforcing rules that are separate from standard company policy. Some of these affinity networks have initiated harrassment of non-compliant (i.e. GC) staff members (and sometimes got the company to go along with it too) It's not physical violence but it's workplace harrassment. Hence some of the recent legal discrimination cases.

One point that she might have made more strongly is that these networks can be treated by employers as fully representative of certain kinds of people - the women's group "represents" women and their interests, the black (or whatever racial minorities) employees group "represents" the views and interests of all the black (etc) employees, the LGBT groups "represents" the views and interests of all employees who are L, or G, or B, or T. And employers give authority to any views expressed by the network, without actually requiring that to be confirmed.

So in answer to her first question, a SEEN network could be about giving an alternative grouping or challenge to a women's group and/or LGBT group that isn't representative of all women's or LGBT people's views (i.e. GC views), and it could be disbanded when/if these networks were willing/able to represent them.

Another point (musing again) a SEEN network is slightly different from an LGBT or women's or ethnic minorities affinity network because it doesn't explicitly try to connect a group of people with similar charactertics who may have any kinds of views at all, but it connects people with a set of views and beliefs which all members more or less agree on.

(edited for clarification)

What the hell?
And you base this on what precisely?
Methinks youre a TRA undermining at every opportunity.

I think it's really clear that a lot of people criticising SEEN on this thread have no idea what they're talking about.

SEEN in HR:

x.com/seeninhr/status/1827752477543841821?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"In answer to @HJoyceGender, we are volunteers who struggle to squeeze this in among work and families. We exist to try to bring balance to gender ideology in workplaces, & in particular to influence CIPD. When we aren’t needed any more on that topic we will gratefully retire."

Joyce in reply:

x.com/hjoycegender/status/1827765536819728706?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"Did i ask this? I can't remember!"

This feels a bit like one of those attempts to sow dissent among people who agree. Undermine.

I mean, perhaps not from Helen Joyce, but perhaps her genuine questions about how groups like stonewall went so wrong are being directed to foment trouble elsewhere.

Yes, absolutely. Which is why I called the OP disingenuous.

I read her article and the one that inspired her. I could not really see what point she was trying to make, at all. I think grass roots, loose affiliations as an engine for mutual support and change are all good.

The whole concept of “mission drift” mentioned in other posts has perplexed me for a while.

I have been hanging back on commenting for fear of sounding a bit of a twat. Or at worst a raving communist.

I suppose i could be accused of that because I am a fan of Marxist philosophy.

As in “historical materialism” which Marx developed as theory, and which Joyce appears to wander in to. And to me it felt like she is swimming out of her lane of expertise/knowledge.

Part of Marx theory as above was that all institutions of human society, formal or otherwise are the outgrowth of its economic activity.

An important element of this is that the ruling forces will adopt and neutralise the threat of change which will affect the balance of power, by funding and/or incorporating them.

So ergo we see institutions “captured” by gender ideology. It’s an exercise in neutralising a threat to our current order. (Remember gender ideology is post modernist)

We see in history all manner of groupings that changed, formalised, organised, took action, split reformed, and continued, for no other reason sometimes, than they exist, and therefore must continue.

from the Levellers, the Luddites, the suffragettes, to Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis, and all manner of voluntary services. And for stonewall, the best at the game of them all.

So i felt very disappointed by Joyce’s scant article, because so much has been written about human allegiances over all of thinking time, none of which she references in her shallow analysis.

So for all of you SEEN activists out there, whatever your voting habits, you have my full support.

I am not talking about Sex Matters. I am talking about workplace networks.

S your argument is that because of all of these terrible things people went through, therefore workplace affinity groups are a good idea?

I've just read Helen's piece. I think it's constructive and thoughtful, as I'd expect from her.

As I see it, one of the jobs of the new SEEN groups is to provide an alternative perspective in workplaces where the silencing of (mainly) women on women's rights has led to a sense of false consensus. Employers can get the impression that everyone's on board with gender woo because there's no visible (audible) challenge to it. Not only are alternative perspectives not aired or considered, but the impression in many workplaces is that gender identity ideology is a settled matter and a done deal. As I see it, the SEEN groups are intending to be a vehicle to make alternative views known, ask the questions that haven't been asked, and achieve policy change.

I would expect/hope that once organisations have ditched policies that trample over women's sex-based rights, that's job done for the SEEN groups. I can't imagine any of them wanting to set up dodgy and coercive charter schemes, but I think it's as well to be asking right now what the end goal is, as Helen's done in that article.

Joyce's questions certainly resonate with me. As tough as it is for individuals to challenge workplace culture, it is even harder when there is a designated group that is deemed to have dealt with the problem. It's extraordinarily difficult to be the spokesperson on any rapidly evolving situation. New aspects of trans ideology will continue to emerge. We each have our own lens and people who question the ideology have such a diversity of backgrounds we are not all going to agree.
Joyce isn't saying there should not be SEEN networks, she's reporting her own presentation to a meeting of SEEN where she called for reflective practice. As I read it.

I think who workplace affinity groups really stand for is a very important point.

It's worth noting that a lot of the gender woo stuff has been pushed by the LGB groups, and actually even in some cases by the groups meant to represent women.

But in general, there seem to often be members of groupings that are NOT on board with the ideas being represented as the desire of said group of people.

The leadership of groups like this doesn't seem particularly transparent nor their recommendations and actions democratic.

It's interesting that SEEN is basically ideological, Could you get another ideological group set up? Let's say you have a workplace with some sort of BAME group, very into id pol and affirmative action type approaches. Could you get a counter group of "conservative black" employees? Or a split between say, black and Asian groups? Maybe in a workplace with a lot of autistic workers you could end up with a gender woo group and a non-gender woo group?

As I mentioned, we don't have groups like this in the same way, however my family member is in the civil service and they do have something like a LGBTQI+ group, which runs a drag queen contest for employees. Can the employer (govt in this case) put the kybosh on something like that if another group doesn't like it? To what extent is the employer obligated to do what the group wants? If the group has some kind of political/social weight, like LGBTQI groups do, does that mean the employer will feel pressured to listen to them more than a women's group? Would that also be the case with other groups with opposed interests and beliefs? (Which gets into Joyce's questions about parallel power structures and how they operate.)

One of the things it makes me think about is what happened with the 60s civil rights movement in the US. A lot of the black leaders came to the conclusion that what had to happen was the overall joining together of poor and wc people to achieve workers and citizen rights, a good standard of living, communities that were well run. Because dividing on racial grounds to achieve these things was, among other things, not going to work. Reading MLK Jr is really interesting on this. My thought is that if workers in workplaces are being set against each other in terms of identity, interest group, and ideology, it's ultimately going to be a bad thing for all.

Not just women's rights. Both the SEEN groups whose histories I know something about were started as a result of lesbians and gay men seeing the workplace LGB support groups they'd had to fight for taken over by trans activists. I'd suggest to you that in many cases it was the lesbians, in particular, speaking out at work who encouraged other women to step up. Lesbians had seen their social activities and circles being affected by transactivists 15 or more years ago and spotted what was happening at work before most straight women understood what it was all about. And of course we were badly punished for speaking up — particularly by other women in the workplace.

Running SEEN groups is a thankless task. It's all done voluntarily often on top to a full day at work and from what I've observed, there's an absolute flood of overwhelming requests from desperate people wanted detailed, personalised help and support to cope with impossible situations. It's not helpful at all to be put under advisement to be careful and reflective by a woman who only discovered gender ideology in 2018/ 2019.

I'm a fan of Helen Joyce but sometimes her lack of hinterland is very obvious. As is yours, @morningtoncrescent62 This is not just a women's issue.

No that's not my argument. My argument is that SEEN groups have barely got going in many cases, they've been established to offer people an alternative form of representation/ support in their sectors or organisations, and they've been set up at often massive personal cost by people who have no long-term plans to gain from them and would love to be able to walk away. My argument is that instead of knocking them and questioning them in a finger-wagging way, we should be supporting them and criticising specifically when/if they go wrong.

I see the decision of the OP to highlight something Helen Joyce said out of context as yet another divide-and-rule tactic from the opposition. Undermine, question, discourage. Just like the left-right/ if you don't sign this letter then you're a racist stuff that people fall for all the time.

It would be great if minorities — people of colour, those with disabilities, lesbian and gay people, whatever — felt so comfortably accommodated in the workplace that there was no need for these affinity groups. But I live in the real world. I think it's great that Martin Luther King Jr is able to theorise about black people coming together with poor people to support each other (this has been mentioned by another poster) but when you're being isolated and harassed and bullied into having to lie about reality in your workplace and HR and your manager don't want to know then a SEEN network is a valuable asset.

You know, I wonder whether SEEN would have been necessary if Unions hadn’t been captured?

I’m reading the need as something unions should have been well positioned to address.

‘Hey, union rep! The Diversity team have started inadvertently discriminating against lesbians. Help!’

Indeed. The first transwoman I encountered in what I'd assumed to be women-only space was a Unison Women's Officer. I resigned from Unison.

'You're misrepresenting what Helen Joyce said for your own disingenuous ends.'
Wow!
NO Im not, i have no 'ends' beyond ending this ludicrous scenario, and learning from our mistakes so it doesnt happen again!
How neurotically paranoid and defensive.
I'm all for SEEN in principle, but I share her concern for unwatched hidden groups, because thats how we got here in the first place.

Are you saying human nature is so pure that it hasnt captured organisation after organisation that we all put our faith in?
From Rape Crisis to Amnesty
Such naivete after all we have been through is breathtaking. And the over identification with groups without discernment is how we bloody well got here in the first place.
Is HJ saying we should not have them?
Am I?
I came across the article, it shared my reservations, I opened it for discussion.
Until we are willing to critique our own process and not be naive about human nature in tribes, then groups like the Fawcett Society, Stonewall etc etc etc will continue to be vulnerable to intrusion.
As Marion Calder told me, when she is gone the For Women Scotland, folds with her to avoid that very issue.
We have all been through some kind of hell thanks to this ideology.
Thanks for the personal attack though

‘What if SEEN networks link up and become an authoritarian political party that takes over the world and imprisons all women? What then eh? We should get rid of them just in case!’

🤔

I share her concern for unwatched hidden groups

SEEN are neither unwatched nor hidden. They are under more scrutiny than any other staff network.