Charities advised no need to rush decisions gender issues - landscape is "evolving"

[IwantToRetire]

Fear has always existed in the charity sector but recently it feels as though it has become an invisible board member: Ms Fearity Doom-mongerer, sitting quietly in meetings, looking for opportunities to scaremonger, rushing people to action before they have had time to think.

One area where this is particularly evident is around trans inclusion and gender identity. Whatever your views on the wider debate, there is no doubt that many charities are navigating a genuinely difficult and evolving landscape. Court judgments, regulatory guidance, public expectations and lived experience all have a role to play.

Leaders and trustees are trying to make sense of complex issues while also worrying about challenges from campaign groups, social media criticism and, increasingly, the prospect of lawfare.

Sometimes the bravest thing a board can do is pause: not to avoid making a decision or to kick the can down the road. But to create enough space to make the right decision.

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/debra-allcock-tyler-charities-not-allow-fear-become-chief-decision-maker/governance/article/1960836

And to think some of us thought if the highest court in the land made a ruling then it was then a law.

But apparently organisation can decide to balance what a law says against public expectations!

There is a desire to change the law and in the meantime circumvent it.

What is sad is that it is people like her that are making it difficult.
It is very simple.
If you are a charity for a single sex. then great Advertise as such.
If you are trans inclusive then do not advertise yourself as a charity for single sex.

You are unlikely to face serious consequences for carefully considering evidence, taking legal advice and reaching a reasoned conclusion, even if that takes time. You are far more likely to face criticism for making a hasty decision that later proves to be flawed.

She thinks shes Jack Sparrow and living under pirate guidelines not the actual law.

...and lived experience all have a role to play.

Does it? Does it really?

Hmm, not sure why any organisation, charity or not, needs to take time to decide whether to comply with the law.

Wouldn’t it have been nice if they’d paused, considered women’s ’lived Experience’ etc before diving into illegality re ‘gender issues’ in the first place?

It's the "confusion" and "it's just so complicated " activist tactic. But, because it's coming from the charity sector, we're supposed to be sympathetic and give it more weight. I think I'll post this over on my list.

It’s about time that people stop automatically thinking all charitable organisations and those who volunteer in them are entirely beneficial/beneficent without question.

Sometimes the bravest thing a board can do is pause: not to avoid making a decision or to kick the can down the road. But to create enough space to make the right decision.

Er no.

Cos this doesnt change the law. The law remains exactly where it is.

Pausing just leaves your organisation at risk of liability for longer whilst you find a backbone to recognise that men are male and women are female and you can't actually change sex and sex is not gender.

All this nonsense about confusion is not hard. Just use your bloody eyes.

Except women's lived experience - of course!

What is so bizarre for a group supposedly "leading" and advising the charity sector is this notion of having the choice whether to comply with regulations, let alone the law.

My experience of charities being monitored was almost unbearable details and exactness down to the last penny in petty cash.

Not some laissez faire "choice" of which regulation to comply with and which not.

I wonder if this is just the inane drivel of a not actually relevant charity advice group. But have a horrible feeling, such is the power of the rainbow umbrella that even normal monitoring officers are making this compliance the exception.

Its just daft.

Because either the charity is single sex and clearly states this.

Or it isn't and clearly states it.

What is the issue?

Ms Fearity Doom-mongerer, sitting quietly in meetings, looking for opportunities to scaremonger, rushing people to action before they have had time to think.

Of course it has to be a woman who is creating the problem!

Oh it's all such a conundrum isn't it?

I mean, who doesn't wake up each morning trying to decide which laws they feel like following that day? Trying to figure if I should or shouldn't do something that is against the law is a constant headache.

Oh wait. It isn't. Following the law is just the basic thing that the whole of society should expect everyone to do. And for there to be penalties for those who don't.