How to respond to work Women’s Network re SC ruling

[TiredyMcTired]

Hi,
(Long time MNet member, but name changed for this just in case…)

We have a Women’s Network in my organisation, who sent out a message on Thursday after the SC ruling. It’s basically a support message for trans & non binary colleagues and allies with links to support for anyone in the LGBT+ community struggling with the outcome of the ruling. Message says that there is a commitment for creating an inclusive environment where everyone can be themselves.

There are now several furious comments under this from colleagues, about the ‘impact, pain & fear’ from the ruling and some rants about the women who have celebrated the SC and that it’s ‘sickening’ to see this celebrated as protecting women’s rights.

I really want to respond to the chair of the network that the whole tone of the message sidesteps support for women, and by leaving these comments there I feel it makes the network an unsafe space for anyone with views that do not align with them.

I’m quite furious that this has been posted in a work based forum, but I just don’t know what to say without painting a target on myself. Any advice please? What would you say?

Tricky - as all this is in the workplace.

Is it worth raising a concern about the lack of balance in the workplace? Pointing out that many lesbians and gay men are pleased that their rights to same sex attraction have been legally confirmed and that there's a danger of the WN making work a hostile environment for people in this PC?

OR could you simply raise a complaint with management about the WN overstepping and making it a hostile environment for staff who respect the laws of the land, who are pleased with the judgement?

I'd be inclined to do the latter I think.

I would be inclined not to post anything but to separately raise with HR that, unless this is actually part of your job, then comments on outcomes of court cases have no place in the workplaces and only lead to people taking sides and contribute to lack of harmony in the workplace

I really want to respond to the chair of the network
Do that, but do it in an e-mail and not on the Network. Also ask them about timeframes - how long before the company enacts the ruling and changes policies, like making the Women's Network women-only?
Make sure that you cc in other people - e.g. HR, legal dept, CEO.

Have you taken screenshots of the messages, btw?

OP, I would just stick to the law, and focus on the fact it isn’t appropriate for whoever controls the message board to leave comments up that vilify women for wanting their legal protections upheld.

I might also point out that leaving the messages up could be considered harassment of women, lesbians and those with gender critical beliefs, each of which is protected from harassment and discrimination under the EA 2010.

I would also look to your communications/social media policy, as something will have some provision covering not posting political views or comments criticising specific groups of people, etc.

Also, screenshot the messages and print out all of your email exchanges on this so you have a copy if things escalate (although I doubt they will now in the current climate) or if they change the wording and deny it.

Thank you all for the advice. I’ve just screen shot the messages, and am in the process of crafting a reply to the chair of the network directly, using some of the words you have suggested, especially the points about sticking to the law.
I’m even more surprised that they put something out, when there has been absolutely nothing yet from HR.

post the message here in full and your objections to it :)

What about that there are lots of different protected characteristics and sometimes you have to strike a balance.
For example: only single sex toilets are designed with door gaps. If you have toilets available to everyone then that may feel inclusive. It means they are designed as enclosed and private which may feel safe too. However it means that actual risk could go up inside the cubicle for the occupant, particularly affecting those with invisible disabilities (collapse) and women and children (assault). Is it right to make cubicles less safe for everyone except healthy males?

This probably only works if your toilets are in the safest configuration though!

I've had another thought about this. I think that you should 'do a Dentons' i.e. get ahead of the curve / tell them how to do their job.
The company set up the Women's Network; they must think that it serves a useful purpose. It would not make sense, therefore, if their response to the trans rumblings is to effectively say "if you can't play nicely then nobody can have it" and shut down the whole thing. They have to keep it going and make it woman-only. If they want to set up an additional trans++ group then that is fine but they can't (morally) shut down the WN.

It's a bit of a philosophical point and difficult to get into words, but the thing that really annoys me about these organisational statements is:

• the protected characteristic I am most likely to need is sex. Its especially important for women.
• it has been confirmed that this pc is based on biological sex. In fact 'sex' means 'biological sex'. In the legal framework that protects our rights, women are a sex.
• to utilise these legal provisions we have to be able to accurately describe our own protected characteristic.
• statements like that described give the impression that my own pc is morally suspect, and make it more difficult to articulate our own needs and rights based on the pc.
• organisations that view the existence of the legal framework as harmful / morally suspect are setting themselves against the rights which they are supposed to uphold in law.