The protection of the biological definition of women and of women-only spaces, services and sports matter to me as I don’t want men in any place where I or any other woman or girl could be naked, semi-naked or vulnerable. I want to restore clear, biology-based definitions of men and women.
I don’t think it is right to compel people to behave or speak in accordance with an ideology that they don’t believe in and which is prejudicial to the interests of women, girls and vulnerable adults. The current situation seems to be a mix of a quasi-religion that allows no heresy and McCarthyism. Freedom of speech is in danger.
I want to establish the principle that women have the right to say no to men’s demands and that women don’t have to sacrifice themselves to allow men to have what they want.
I have spoken to colleagues and other people I work with – in the high-profile, prestigious place I work there are lots of people who work there who are not employees of the organisation – about the implications of the organisation’s transgender policy which has been dictated by Stonewall.
Some people have not understood the problem until I pointed it out. Everyone has been appalled and disgusted.
HR are completely unresponsive on the transgender policy so I formally contacted a very senior (non-HR) member of the staff who I work with from time to time about the implications of the transgender policy. He listened very kindly and seemed very concerned, but it turns out that he was mainly interested in whether I had been sexually harassed at work (I haven’t).
However, the transgender policy has been amended, I assume as a result of my intervention to take out the passage “transgender people can have any sexual orientation. For example, a transgender man (someone who lives as a man today) may be primarily attracted to other men (and identify as a gay man), may be primarily attracted to women (an identify as a straight man), or have any other sexual orientation”.
The management evidently took notice when I pointed out that the passage made clear that they knew they were expecting people to change their clothes or use the toilet in the presence of heterosexual people of the other sex and that that could make them legally responsible for any harassment. Apart from that keeping the Stonewall Diversity Champion status and appearing woke seem to be much more important that the safety, privacy, dignity and peace of mind of the staff.
I follow gender critical organisations on Facebook and I used to comment on Twitter, but I got barred for speaking up for women. I also comment on newspaper articles, primarily in the Times.
I would have had qualms about doing so at work if I had any desire for promotion or if the criteria for my annual assessment were substantially subjective or if I had longer to go until I retire. I’ve also been very careful to keep all my complaints strictly formal and via my work IT network so that if harassment arises it will be possible to trace its source via the network.
I’ve been barred from Twitter and some of my comments on the Times have been deleted.
S, Adult human female