How Do I Treat Trans Staff Following the Supreme Court's Ruling?

 

The Supreme Court's recent ruling that "woman" refers to "someone who was biologically female at birth" only directly connects to roles specifically reserved for women, which have to follow a specific process to authorise gender exclusion against men.  It does not mean "I want my organisation to be female-dominant, so I don't have to employ trans women anymore!"  Nor does it mean that you "aren't allowed" to continue respecting the gender - and names and pronouns - of trans people who currently work for you, and those you "don't think look like women" - who probably actually aren't trans.

For Boards, who are being legally obliged towards demonstrating equity, the real diversity is diversity of approach.  Here at The Productive Pessimist, we work very much in alignment with Leandro Herrero's style of management - and very much agree with his statement: "If you have two people who think exactly the same, fire one of them!"

Echo chambers are lethal - and women are as capable of creating echo chambers as anyone else; something which should be manifestly demonstrated by the Supreme Court's ruling, which came about as a result of women creating echo chambers which centred their own experiences.

There are six known variations of XX=female, XY=male in terms of chromosome karyotypes which do not present in neonatal physical abnormalities, and which, in fact, do not necessarily cause any physical gender variance, and which do not impact life experience or expectation - many people with these chromosomal variants will never actually know that, "biologically", they are not men or women, an assignment which is not made "based on how hormones and chromosomes impact the body", but literally on "going to have a look-see at an infant baby's genitals."  It is likely as medical science improves, more chromosomal variants will be identified that don't result in obvious physical incongruence.

Your Board doesn't require an equal split between "people who have always had penises, and call themselves men" and "people who have never had penises, and call themselves women"; your Board, your senior executive, your organisation, requires a diversity of:
. Socio-economic current reality
. Socio-economic experience
. Communication styles
. Physical ability
. Neurotype
. Relationship style
. Opportunity experience
. Unpaid labour demand experience
. Sector experience
. Employability experience
. Cultural experience
. Demographic experience
. Working style experience
. Leadership style experience
. Political position
. Socio-political position

None of these diversities will exclusively be found in "men" or "women" - though some of them will be exclusively found in non-white people, and people from minority white backgrounds.  Some will be exclusively found in disabled and neurodivergent people. Some will exclusively be found in the people you automatically reject because they're long-term unemployed, or their work history isn't a nice, smooth, linear progression.

By the Supreme Court's ruling, I would qualify to take a position restricted to "women"... and, if the response is "Well, you've had surgery, so you wouldn't!" - that would mean that a woman who has had a hysterectomy and mastectomy to treat or prevent cancer wouldn't qualify for that protected position, either.

I don't want roles which are identified as being for women, because nothing about my social understanding, communication style, working style, or leadership style connects with a white, Southern-English understanding of "woman" or "feminine."

But a woman who has had a mastectomy and hysterectomy may very well want those roles.  A post-menopausal woman almost certainly will - but menopause is, at its simplest, the position of an historically estrogen-dominant system switching to run as an androgen-dominant system.

Both male and female humans have both androgen and testosterone. Prior to puberty, levels of both are very low, which is why young children have a lack of non-genital sexual dimorphism (the ability to look at someone, and, at a glance, decide whether they're male or female - sexual dimorphism is present in other animal species, too, but humans are typically not great at distinguishing without reliance on external genitalia...).
At puberty, the brain typically runs a scan of the chromosomes - of which it can only read the first two - and decides which hormone, out of testosterone and estrogen (which are just two of over 50 hormones with an impact on sexual health and development...) will "run" the biochemical system.
Usually, an XY chromosome pairing triggers testosterone dominance, and an XX chromosome pairing triggers estrogen dominance.

But not always - and, when the people whose hormone dominance is atypical for their chromosomes are not trans, this often causes significant distress.

I started puberty at ten.
My voice dropped to a low tenor, my jaw became stronger, I began to grow facial hair - and I started menstruation.

Only the last item on that list caused me significant distress - however, cisgender women who develop facial hair at puberty are typically exceptionally distressed by that fact.

One of my sight-loss conditions is apparently a Y-linked variant. Which means it's triggered by a chromosome that, courtesy of the word "female" on a birth certificate, and the fact that I menstruated, the "common sense" of "biology" that the Supreme Court ruling is based on says I shouldn't have.

I don't "understand women", and I often find myself having to stop, and work through feelings that, if I just allowed them free expression, would be quite misogynistic, because I've experienced a lot of harm from women. (That's unconscious bias at work, folks - yes, it "just happens", without any "decision to think like that" - but you absolutely can interrupt those thoughts, and think "No, that's wrong - that's my resentment/anxiety talking, and I'm better than my worst traits.") I don't really "do" empathy.  I'm all about direct communication. I don't want to faff about coming to a "consensus" and "ensuring everyone has a chance to be heard" when there's action needing to be taken.

At points of extreme poverty, it has never been an un-anxious thought that "I could sell lewds/nudes!" - there have been times I've come to accept that "I should probably offer some kind of sex work/sex-adjacent work", but I've immediately wondered if taking my own life would be more reasonable. I've always felt disgusted at placing those ads - even though, socio-politically, my view is "If you're genuinely not being coerced, including by circumstances, and this actually doesn't bother you, why not? Men are always going to be stupid enough to hand over money for a fantasy, so why not be the person to take it from them?"  For other people, I don't have a problem with sex work - but there's a really strong resistance for me around even offering cheeky photos. (It's never actually resulted in any money, anyway...probably just as well for my sense of self...)

And you know what? I've met plenty of non-trans women who approach life in very similar ways to me, but who are comfortable with their gender being female, or "female-ish", in line with their "common sense biology"; would they be denied access to "roles reserved for women?"

I should be refused those roles.
A butch woman should not.

When a legal ruling is designed to oppress or exclude a particular group, do not comply in advance.

Diversity isn't just "has a penis/doesn't have a penis."
The blend isn't "equal numbers of men and women", it's "equitable spread of masculine and feminine attitudes and focus."

What energy is missing from your Board?
What energies need to be amplified on your Board?
What energies and attitudes are dragging your Board down?
Why isn't your Board communicating effectively?

If you don't know - we can help you find out.
Email: theproductivepessimist@yahoo.com

(But be aware, if you insist on "having a female consultant" - you'll get my business partner, Morgana.)

When you are asking for Right to Work documentation - please understand just how much anxiety that is going to cause for trans people, and visibly intersex people, in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling.  

At The Productive Pessimist, it is our belief that Right to Work is an exclusionary requirement, rooted in racism, which is having significant impacts on the prospects and life chances of a range of people in the UK. We believe it should be scrapped as a matter of priority.

A trans person should not have to out themselves to be employed.

If we're now basing laws on "common sense", as the Supreme Court's ruling suggests - well, it's "common sense" whether someone is British or not, isn't it?  It's "common sense" that the photo on someone's bus pass or driving licence is the same person who's standing in front of you.

Birth certificates literally state that they "can't be used as evidence of identity" - so stop demanding them when someone happens to have not had a spare £85+ to apply for a passport.

People convicted of antisocial behaviour offences may have their passports seized.
People currently on bail may have their passports seized.
It's actually becoming harder for people who didn't have a passport as a child - usually because of family poverty - to actually qualify and apply for a passport.
The process of applying for a passport can be overwhelming for people with learning disabilities, who would still be able to work.

We have also created short, free guidance for organisations who remain committed to trans and intersex inclusion, which can be viewed here

Going forward, we are providing inclusion consultancy which is focused on trans and intersex inclusion at just £20 fixed fee, which is over 50% off our standard consultation fee.

These consultations will be carried out exclusively remotely, with the option of a phone call, email exchange, or video call, to suit your needs and preferences.