Compelled conformity new workplace research by LGB Alliance

[Imnobody4]

https://x.com/robjessel16/status/1945069521821163911?t=6KjgfZTOuediMLUTkgkAiA&s=19
Article
workplacejournal.co.uk/2025/07/lgb-employees-face-hostility-for-wrong-views-at-work-research-reveals/

Here's a link to the whole report. It should be very useful.

https://lgbbusinessforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Compelled-Conformity-Report.pdf

This research provides insights into the experiences and perspectives of a specific group of LGB employees whose voices are underrepresented in mainstream workplace EDI discussions.
Despite strong personal commitments to inclusion, fairness, and legal protections under the
Equality Act 2010, this group of LGB respondents describe a workplace environment that falls far
short of these ideals. They frequently face workplace exclusion hostility tied to their beliefs about
sex, gender, and sexual orientation.

Good. Not that so many people are suffering but good that this is getting an airing. Hopefully it will make HR departments think twice. Thanks for sharing nobody.

Thanks for highlighting this report.

Sorry to see that so many are facing discrimination, but it's good to see the pushback that this report represents. The more the noise from the LGB organisations, the more the realisation that the alphabeties are not the voice of the 'community' that companies/organisation think they're championing.

"the alphabeties"... 😂😂

(sorry - that made me laugh)

Alphabetties! Lol. Stealing that!

But yes, an important report particularly for those of us who've been sidelined and bullied by the 'Be Kind' EDI brigade for raising actual safeguarding issues.

I think this could be very useful for those facing pressure in their place of work.

Just worried that because it is titled as being by the "business forum" might not bother with it as an employee!

This report is a useful evidence base for anyone who works in an organisation that talks about "bringing your whole self to work". Has there been much press coverage of it? Not sure I'm brave enough to send it to my HR director!

This is incredibly biased research/report. As it only included LGB alliance supporters, of course the statistics were going to show up the way they did.

So ignoring that bit, some of the quotes are interesting but a lot are unverifiable. The one about the lesbian asking to join the EDI group and she was told no… I’m a lesbian and I asked to join the group and I was told no, not because I’m a lesbian but because they already had a representative from my area of the business who was better positioned to contribute and make the actions happen, and the group couldn’t be too large.

I’d be interested in seeing unbiased research across lesbian, bisexual, gay populations with expanded stories (not just 1 out of context sentence) and see how this holds up. That might already exist and I’ve missed it.

I’m shocked that an ‘evidence,
science based’ org would produce this, honestly.

Firstly the report is very clear what its sample method is. From page 1:

"Sampling approach. Research was conducted with gay, lesbian, and bisexual supporters of LGB Alliance. LGB Alliance has a large supporter base with diverse political views, working in various sectors across the UK"

Not only did they emphasise the survey wasn't random, they actually vetted responses to ensure submissions met a preselection criteria.

The reason why this report is unique is that it's, in effect, impossible to collect information on gay men and lesbians because trans people identify as gay men and lesbians when in fact they are heterosexual. And they are often highly emphatic about that designation. It is less of a problem for gay men, because homosexual men still predominate and there are relatively few women who identify as gay men, but they would still distort the statistics.

With respect to lesbians, however, because if the high portion of transwomen who are heterosexual, potentially more than half the respondents of a survey of lesbians could be transwomen, many of whom insisting that their sex was female.

So, as an example in the unvetted world of MN, it could well be that you are in fact a heterosexual male identifying as lesbian, and the proffered anecdote that you "asked to join the group and I was told no, not because I’m a lesbian but because they already had a representative from my area of the business", would be totally irrelevant for the purposes of this survey, which was to gather the opinions of female homosexuals.

Ridiculous. The methodology and intent are made perfectly clear at the beginning. But of course, if a piece of research wanted to look at women’s experiences, you’d object if the sample excluded certain men, wouldn’t you?

And what @GallantKumquat said.