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 seem confused, @Pifflepafflewifflewaffle. The OP's speaking at a women's group in relation to women's issues which are relevant (if not central) to her work. She says, she's been invited to speak about "an area of expertise that has a peripheral impact on women which is why they've invited me".

To do this in a meaningful way, she needs to understand what the audience, and she, mean by "woman". Perhaps their meanings will intersect or overlap - "how women are judged in professional contexts according to whether their clothing is traditionally gendered or not" would be applicable to women and transwomen. Or perhaps their meanings will be distinct - "how women manage period poverty in deprived urban centres" would be applicable only to women.

There wouldn't have been this necessity 10 years ago, but now there's a volatility surrounding these issues that you posts help to demonstrate. Eg. your reference to pants (I'm not even going to quote it - ugh) - what on earth makes you write that? It's weird enough that I don't plan to engage with you again on this.

I also don't want to disrupt the OP's thread further. I honestly think I've made my point, and that your interventions have in fact demonstrated its validity, in real time, it for me and other readers.

Popping back in to report back after the event.
It was all good, nobody got cancelled and I wasn't put on the spot about anything political. Thanks again for your advice.

There were a few things about the event I found odd to see in a work setting:

• Venue decked out in progress pride flags and had a LGBTQ recommended reads table
• Some organisers and attendees wearing political symbols (mostly palestine flags)
• A few mentions from organisers and speakers about other political issues, not related to the event (palestine)
• Organiser stating they define women as anyone with a female gender
• Another speaker using their slot to talk about how the SC ruling is bad for women (particularly annoying as she has a really interesting role and theres about 20 things I'd love to hear her talk about)

I suppose the above was only from 5% of attendees, with everyone else clapping and smiling politely (including me) but I found the overall effect was to signal that there were approved views on complex/controversial issues. It stopped me getting involved in further discussion on the issues we were there to discuss, in case I said the wrong thing. I probably won't go to future events.

Anyway, quite a weird experience overall and I'm glad to get back to my end of the sector. Not sure if these kind of events have always been odd and I've not noticed, or this one was particularly so. Probably a bit of both?!

Thanks for reporting back, and glad it went reasonably well. Sad but not surprised to hear its aims - and your own participation - were arguably somewhat undermined by gender ideology. It suggests that your wariness in your original post was indeed justified.

So the "womens" group organisers has shot the event in its foot.

They invited you as you are a 'rare' example in your end of the industry and should be an example of a woman breaking through barriers etc. And have the ability to share valuable experiences of what it is like to work in your role.

Instead they allowed trans ideology and other political ideology to create a limiting factor on a free exchange of ideas. This cholce prevented you and possibly others from exploring various roles and share experiences.

You have assed that you gain limited / no value from the event and dont see a value in participating in the next event.

You've helped me clarify - this is the issue for me I think "other political ideology created a limiting factor on a free exchange of ideas"

I was quite involved in some equality things with work in the early days of the EA2010, in my memory these were interesting because there was robust exchange of ideas and I was challenged and learned a lot.

What I wonder now though is perhaps the same things were going on, but I didn't notice them because I had the 'right' views? Hard to know. Makes me reassess some conversations with people who disagreed with me on various equality issues back then.

It depends on how the discussion was managed.

Robust exchanges only happen if the group is able to see multiple issues and list pros and cons. If it was seen as a good way to work out a fairly wide view of what is "black/white" and how to manage the "grey" the overall outcome will be better.

I am reminded of the NHS Brighton (?) position on women asking for same sex healthcare which was deemed as transphobic. Its management staff failed (refused) to recognise their legal obligations to obtain informed consent and prevent male staff engaging in criminal assault so they failed (refused) to write a policy on what a staff members obligation was. The robust discussions could not happen because it is very clear what the result would be.

Its the same with any political ideology if people have vested reasons to not get involved the outcome is skewed or less than it could have been.

This.

When you require everyone doing anything about women to first take the knee to men with gender identities, you've just ended your core purpose and signalled to all that women should not be the primary focus and be bloody careful what you say/limit your involvement as much as possible in case some nutter doesn't like it and decides to wreck your career. Shot in the foot indeed.

Hopefully we're going to see actual women only groups set up using the law and the right to be women only, and be able to get back to actually doing things for women that don't have to be all about men and activists.

They've 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.

EDI professionals also have to adhere to the laws of the land. The Sandie Peggie case has really highlighted that taking duff advice from EDI professionals does not protect you at all when the shit hits the fan. If EDI and the Equality Act are not your area of expertise OP it's find to state that if any questions arise.

Thanks Cpt Nancy. It’s reassuring that the 95% are sane but the 5% are so vocal and so keen to penalise wrongthink.

I'd keep to the facts, not add anything extra around definitions etc.

How does your job benefit women? I'm sure the basis in grounded in reality not swirly skirts and head tilts. If it's flexible working type HR, you can talk about the caring responsibilities women face, if it's designing phone handsets that fit the female hand, you can mention women have smaller hands. Just use "woman" in a reality, common sense way when describing how your work helps them. Don't get drawn into anything more, nobody will benefit.

@FortheloveofPetethePlumber

"..take the knee to men with gender identities" is such a brilliant way to put it.

The solemn declarations before any event that “women includes transwomen” etc.