Help translating EDI speak please!

[cptnancyblackett]

I've been invited by a women's group in my sector to speak at an event. My sector is broad, and I work at the grubbier end, this group and the audience are at the shinier end.
I've noticed the event invite includes this: "We define “woman” as anyone who identifies as one and affirm our full support for trans rights and gender-diverse experiences. This workshop welcomes people of all genders who care about equity in [sector]"
At my end of the sector none of this stuff comes up - people are pretty grounded and just get on with their work. As a result I don't really know what this means!
I'll be talking about an area of expertise that has a peripheral impact on women which is why they've invited me. I'm now a bit worried I may find myself put on the spot about things I've no desire or expertise to talk about.

Can anyone help me translate what this means? is it just a disclaimer to stop them getting flak and allow them to do their work focussing on women, or should I be more worried?

You could briefly reference the recent Supreme Court judgement establishing that the word "woman" means in the biological sense, maybe citing a few lines from it that demonstrate the sheer illogicality of any other interpretation, as a prelude to your section that justifies your adopting this perspective so that you're able to provide meaningful and accurate information to your audience.

If you want to acknowledge the alternative perspective in their blurb, perhaps include a line to the effect that you welcome other contributors' thoughts, before and/or after your own, on how their areas of expertise relate to this alternative, wider definition. Of course, this may itself risk exposing this wider definition as nonsensical and potentially offensive/counter-productive. If so, regrettably, it's tempting to say - so much the better.

Edited to add: if you're genuinely not well-versed in all this, though, it's probably fair to add that the above approach could open you to condemnation, on a spectrum from angry mutters at one end right through to attempts to de-platform you or worse at the other. Astonishing, I know. The response will likely depend on whether it is, indeed, a disclaimer, or a deep-seated belief that it's unethical to name women without including self-identifying males. I'd wager the latter is more likely, regrettably. Again, astonishing, I know.

One other comment. If you want to avoid any risk of confrontation, simply referring to "women" without any further qualification of your meaning should do the job. If the blurb realls is just a disclaimer of sorts, you should be fine! But if it isn't, and you're unlucky in your audience, I could see some scope for you being challenged should you not explicitly address the needs of transwomen, or incidentally phrase something in a way that doesn't align with the True Faith that Transwomen ARE women...

I'm so sorry that it's become this difficult to talk about women's issues. Another thread right now asks why transwomen are in any way relevant to us. This is why. We didn't ask for this confusion and volatility to be introduced into society's attempts to address women's needs.

It means that the “woman’s” group isn’t. It’s mixed sex.

I would contact the organiser and say you'd like to reiterate that your talk relates to your work with women as defined in the Equality Act 2010 and recently clarified by the Supreme Court, and that this includes women who identify as trans/non binary. So if they need someone to talk about sector work that involves males, your role may not be appropriate.

How would their policies around ‘inclusion’ impact the presentation you’re giving?

Are you concerned that your choice of words might fall foul of the language policing they (no doubt) do? Or is the subject itself likely to touch on areas of contention?

A follow-up. My opening 2 paragraphs above reflect my own frustration at the dilemma you're facing, and don't fully acknowledge the essence of your question - that you really don't want, yourself, to get embroiled in this. Sorry. In this respect, my last two paragraphs are probably more helpful. Perhaps I was influenced by your fabulous fighting Amazon-ian username. 😁 Sometimes, though, there's a strong argument for Swallow-ing your pride / the bitter pill of our redefinition, and just feigning ignorance of the whole damn mess.

So a Women's group has asked you to present and not told you that the Women might include people that pretend they don't know what sex they are and some of whom might be men?

I think you are stepping into an almighty landmine and would be wise to be unfortunately unexpectedly busy that day. Unless you need the money desperately, one word out of place could result in a cancellation or complaint.

I would withdraw your offer to speak and tell them that it's because, in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, their group is at risk of discriminating against people due to the protected characteristic of philosophical belief, and that you don't want to be part of any potential legal action.

Its a mixed sex audience who are interested in women's interests in the sector, thats fine.

Hopefully their policies will have no impact on me - I'm talking about an area of expertise that happens to benefit women (although thats not the main reason we do it).

I will certainly feign ignorance if needed, I just sorely hope it doesn't come up and we can stick to the matter at hand.

Isnt it frustrating having to worry about being cancelled when all you want to do is share a bit of industry knowledge. How on earth has this all gone so wrong?

@Catiette - red flag at beckfoot = escape the lecture theatre, run for the exits, hoist the mainsail!

“It’s not my area”. If pushed to take a stance keep it factual and/or highlight that many problems could be avoided if everyone wasn’t pushed to have an opinion on everything.

Total derail, but thank you @cptnancyblackett and @Catiette for making clear to me what books I need to be downloading onto my kindle for my summer holiday delectation.

Wise advice @BackToLurk . I'll think of some deflecting words in case i'm asked a provocative question. Luckily the focus of my work isn't women which makes it easier to deflect - some women happen to benefit from what I'm talking about but its not the main purpose for doing it.

And perhaps the women's group organising this really wants to be able to do the same, but in the water they swim in has to make certain concessions to be able to do the work they want? Who knows

Or maybe they don’t, and they support marginalised communities.

do you really think that a trans woman in your audience is going to have someone had a better time of it in the workplace? Literally look at this forum for what they know every day some people in work are thinking.

theyve made a statement about who they include when they talk about women, I would suggest (EDI professional) that you follow that very clear cue (you don’t need to refer to it explicitly) or opt out if it goes against your beliefs or values, they’ve shown you what they’re expecting of your behaviours and approach in their remit.

You see, this is the problem for me - I basically have no idea what you are talking about - I don't know what the language you are using means! I think for people immersed in this it probably seems like there are clear cues, but if you are not they feel like traps where words and phrases you are used to using one way can have different meanings and can be taken to signal certain political viewpoints.

I don't want to offend anyone or get into politics - all I want to do is talk about my slightly niche, technical area to anyone who is interested. There should be no need to get into any of this. I wish there wasn't!

It means some of your fellow speakers might be talking about trans women and their experiences, and that would be welcomed by the organisers. But I don't see there's anything in what they've said to stop you just talking about women in the traditional sense of the word and how what you're doing impacts them. If someone asks a question about trans women just answer it honestly (eg, "that hasn't really come up" or "I'm sure they'd also benefit from Xxxx").

red flag at beckfoot = escape the lecture theatre, run for the exits, hoist the mainsail!

Or recite the first two lines of Casabianca, while mowing the lawn in a pattern to say "Not today" !

No, I think this is my point, I don’t think you do need to do or say anything, just if you, as previous posters have suggested, use your platform to share your views on whether trans women are women, for example, the organisers are likely to have an issue with it, because they’ve made their position clear.

for all you need to know, their statement could just refer to bathroom facilities, so you can work on that basis and just get your presentation done without worrying about any of it, I would think?

What Piffle seems to be saying is that, regardless of the content of your talk and nature of its relevance to women, you include transwomen (males) in what you say.

So Piffle is saying, apparently, that if you're discussing pregnancy, or periods, or FGM etc., you should also present this as applicable to males, as this is the ethical thing to do.

The only alternative I can see is that Piffle is suggesting that, if your talk is about any of the above - even if it may be of benefit to trans men (females) - you perhaps don't give the talk at all.

Am I right, @Pifflepafflewifflewaffle? I find it hard to understand the below in any other way:

theyve made a statement about who they include when they talk about women, I would suggest (EDI professional) that you follow that very clear cue (you don’t need to refer to it explicitly) or opt out if it goes against your beliefs or values

if you, as previous posters have suggested, use your platform to share your views on whether trans women are women, for example, the organisers are likely to have an issue with it, because they’ve made their position clear

Apologies, OP, as I know your thread is seeking practical advice, and a challenge to Piffle of this kind is perhaps not the most helpful. It's just that the absurdity of their approach (or not, if Piffle does reply to clarify that I've misunderstood), and its impact on speakers such as yourself (already, I think, proven by the existence of the thread itself) really concerns me.

No, that’s not what I’m saying.

the OP explicitly said: ‘ Luckily the focus of my work isn't women which makes it easier to deflect - some women happen to benefit from what I'm talking about but its not the main purpose for doing it.’, which means that your suggestions are irrelevant, because believe it or not, not everything is about what’s in someone’s pants.

im saying that given the OP’s subject doesn’t touch on the matter, unless she goes out of her way to reference a perspective that goes outside of the one made clear by the organisers, there’s no reason she’d have to delve into the semantics of the Supreme Court ruling and make herself uncomfortable.

interesting that the EHRC have just backpedaled on their hasty recommendations, incidentally.

They haven't back pedaled at all.

backpedalled 😂

Ahh you mean this bit from their website referencing Monday's update:

“This change has been made to ensure everyone has access to the most accurate information. It should not be interpreted as a change in our fundamental position on the implications of the judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that sex in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex.

Not seeing much backpedalling there!

OP - pifflepafflewifflewaffle is clearing saying that they believe that a man can be a woman - obviously that is not true, so despite any EDI professional experience, be cautious about being taken down a path of their choosing...

back to your original point...
you need to consider why your topic having a marginal impact on women is relevant - presumably you mention this because there is a significance for women in that impact. If so, then that significance will not apply to transwomen who are not women, but who are men.

So it is relevant to present it but I don't think that I would overly worry - I would simply present your talk and refer to women - there may be those there who wrongly believe that might include some men - but their misbelief is not going to impact your talk. If you are directly challenged I would simply say that you comply with the recent Supreme Court Judgement in defining women as biological women / defined by birth sex.

Hopefully they will be too polite to go off at a tangent, I think the key in today's world though is to just play it straight as always happened, with no expectation that anyone might think otherwise, and with an assumption that everyone is with you - it makes it much harder for trouble makers to cause issues... and if they do you can speak confidently in the knowledge that you are backed up by biology / reality / law / etc.

Thanks folks. Your responses have helped me think through what may come up and I feel much better prepared. As I said, all of this is totally theoretical to me - with where I work and the things I do its never come up for me in real life. Its in a few days time so depending on whether anything interesting happens I may report back!

interesting that the EHRC have just backpedaled on their hasty recommendations, incidentally.

No they haven't. They've simply clarified a small point about workplaces providing non-sex differentiated toilets.

You TRAs really are grasping at straws now.

If possible, keep it vague?

Obviously some men who claim they are women will have it worse than other men, others don’t (Pips Bunce appears to be lauded, for example).

Guess it depends what your area is, but if other marginalized groups than women might also be positively impacted, you can just say that you haven’t looked at other groups specifically, but that you think it’s likely any marginalized group might see the same effect. You don’t have to comment on whether you think that particular group of men is marginalized or not.