![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
natalyadThis is my very informal writeup of Institute of Equality and Diversity Practitioners (IEDP) seminar on LGBT "Working to make equality happen" series - 2nd of 4.
The idea of each of the seminars is to focus on a single/group of Equality Act protected characteristics and look at other intersections to that.
The day was split into two parts separated by a lunch provided by the IEDP. There were two panels and 6 speakers. I shall use initials for all of them as I am not sure some of them are safe to be outed and don't wish to make them stand out because of that.
I have linked to each functional section of the day so readers can skip to that part of this post as I have just burbled my brain out onto the keyboard.
Panel 1 - morning chaired by David Viney from Birmingham LGBT
1) E from Gender Matters discussing trans and trans-feminine issues and perspective.
2) Me Natalya Dell, "professional" bisexual discussing bisexuality within and outwith LGB(T).
3) J from Gender Matters discussing trans and trans-masculine issues and perspective.
Panel Q&A part 1
4) W from United Colours an LGBT group for people of colour (BME) discussing being black and gay.
Panel 2 - afternoon
5) D LGBT activist and educator discussing LGBT equality in education and public sector
6) S Diversity manager from Co-Op group discussing inclusion within Co-Op
Round table discussions for the rest of the event.
The seminar was opened by Linda Bellos the chair of the IEDP board whose name I have seen around (especially on twitter recently cos of Friday's Rainbow Intersectionality event. Linda talked a little about the IEDP and why it was created and how important it is to look outwards. She discussed the issues of boxing people one box, more than one box, multiple boxes and it's clear from a quick Google cos I didn't know much about Linda Bellow before the seminar that intersectionality is something Linda has been fighting for for a long time before it was a more widely accepted concept and indeed word taken up.
The IEDP is a relatively small organisation who are actively seeking members because they receive no money or funding on a regular basis from outside. It was notable no rude remarks were made about the EHRC (less is more which made me laugh cos the EHRC were useless AND patronising to me when I tried to get them to help me with our friends HMRC and disability discrimination). The IEDP's aim was to raise standards of Equality and diversity work because anyone can call themselves an Equality and Diversity practitioner and quite often they do regardless of their skills and quality of their work. I have a lot of experience of pan-equality people who get hung up on one strand to expense of all else, and it is very difficult if not actually impossible to be good and strong on all strands and areas especially if overworked and low on time and energy to commit to what is constant learning and engagement.
The lack of external funding for IEDP means they didn't suffer too badly under AusterityTM because they were used to running a lot on a voluntary basis. Like bi community events, I recognsise the professionality of materials and publicity and website yet shoestring budgets and heavy reliance on volunteer time and energy.
The hope is that the IEDP can find ways of effectively using what resources and skills they have to link groups up and share experiences, avoid re-inventing the wheel. They also hope to be able to keep doing events which aren't just in London an they recognised that they hadn't done this round in NI, Wales or Scotland but hopefully that's a thing they'll manage in the next year.
E from Gender Matters was the first panel speaker taking about transgender issues in general and a bit about her personal experience and trans feminine issues and perspectives. I liked E's controversial statement of "Equality cannot exist - discuss" but I'm not sure she actually really covered it - it seemed a bit incongruous (unless my brain simply forgot all that was said).
E talked about the Equality Act and what it does and does not do, sadly the concept of dual discrimination which is inherently intersectional got nobbled at some point in committees before the act went live. I think many people would agree with E that the Equality act does not go far enough although in some ways it is an impressive piece of social engineering. E didn't say that trans people have reasons to be V Unhappy with the EA cos it reverses some of the basic rights from the Gender Recognition Act but I want people to know that here.
E then discussed some aspects of trans and different groups within the transgender "umbrella" as it is apparent Gender Matters is very open in its inclusion of non-binary identified people. She also discussed aspects of transexual experience and how outdated it is, being gate-kept by psychologists and psychiatrists who can tell "patients" that their clothes are inappropriate in a way which would not be tolerated by any other group of "patients". While some things are better since the Equality Act for trans people in that anyone can see their GP and request referral to a gender identity clinic it is still very slow; the real life experience (or test) is horrendous forcing trans people to live/work/socialise as a gender they may not be able to pass well as well as they could with treatment before being allowed to continue.
E talked of her hopes for the future where the process of support for people who wish to transition in some way being less medicalised and more trans-person led with informed consent and less slow and hindered by the medical and legal systems.
After E it was swiftly onto me where I added a bit more to my intro in response to Linda Bellos's opening comments, namely that I was a disabled person and disabled students' adviser in my day job and that the bi community like the IEDP had suffered less in austerity cos we weren't used to having a lot of money either before mostly sticking to my script as outlined in my previous blogpost about this. I added a little bit about the bisexual asylum seeker asked very intrusive questions as outlined by Milena Popova in the Huffington Post recently.
We then had a tea and coffee break during which I had a little chat with some reps from Lancashire police services who asked who the biphobic hatecrimes force was (and were relieved it wasn't them!). I talked with them a little about hatecrimes before getting a nice surprise when someone, S, who I had only met once IRL before, but whose work (and piles of cranky assistive tech) I inherited in my dayjob came and sat next to me. S's ghost at work is still alive and well over 6 years since she left which says a lot about how well respected, liked and professional she was. S is now training to be an Equality and Diversity person and wasn't sure I was the same Natalya she knew. We had a good chat about all sorts of stuff and I hope she'll come and say hello to us at the workplace sometime! Small world!
After the coffee break we were onto J from Gender matters who has the same issue that I do about trying not to swear when being a professional-wossname. He was really interesting and made it very clear that the trans-masculine experience is not just a reverse of trans-feminine experiences it is different in many positive and negative ways. J talked about the lower risk that trans-masculine people often face in daily life is paired with increased invisibility. Apparently some stats say that for every 4 "trans women" there is only one "trans man", and J discussed some of the issues around stats. I find it fascinating that when we initially gender-divide stuff like that (probably wrongly) in society that it is always 4:1, dyslexia, Autism spectrum etc etc. There are lots of good reasons trans-masculine people may not historically or currently choose to go down a medical transgender route which hits the stats.
J also discussed the issues around transitioning in gender terms not happening in a vacuum, there are families which may come with someone, or have to be left behind; there may be a partner who sticks around (or has to be left behind) and asked the very valid question "What is the sexual orientation of a person who's partner has transitioned to a different gender from that which they appeared to be at the start of the relationship" - there clearly isn't an answer but it's not as straight forward to say presumed-straight male partner of a person who transitions from female to more male identified becomes bisexual or gay or...
J also talked a lot about physical characteristics, gender roles and gendered social skills and how that affects passing and living as a gender that you have not been socialised in from birth. There are different views amongst trans community people about how much individuals choose to declare or acknowledge "trans history" with good reasons for different choices. It made me think about areas of controversy and how nice it was to see two trans people openly disagreeing with one another but nicely and with love and affection and it being OK. It reminds those of us "learning" about an axes of oppression which we don't live to remember those areas of controversy and try to find ways of not judging or taking sides but being open minded to let people direct us in their choices (and not just applying to trans, but all sorts of stuff, deafness, race, disability etc etc). And that sometimes the choices might depend on context whether you're "in group" or not e.g. I usually wouldn't initiate the use of the term "crip" with my disabled students but I might with disabled friends or when talking informally.
J ended his presentation with his view on the essentials for how to treat him and other trans people:
1) Respect me as a human being
2) Get my name right
3) Get my pronoun right
4) Gimme coffee!
Even if you do not understand the intricacies, or details, it should be easy to show respect and apply it. I really liked that "here's the short answer to take away".
After J we started the panel questions and discussion for E, J and myself which was chaired by Dave Viney. Dave had chatted with us all before the panel and we'd agreed we'd focus the questions on intersectionality first, then LG B and T and how we can work together and then a free for all. I think we sort of did that in a back and forth way and it was a useful idea to think of themes before we started.
One of the comments raised was the sharedness of many experiences such as the commonality of world-experience between some trans-masculine or trans male people and butch dykes; e.g. in toilets can be challenged for being in "wrong toilets" and how to manage that depending on actual self-identity vs self-preservation etc.
Someone raised the point that several of us speakers had referred to "the other side", who were this other side. Where there times we too are the other side in other people's narratives. Example given of gay Muslim groups getting "terrorists" shouted at them in Pride marches and how we should ALL take responsibility for challenging that shit and if we (as we hope) believe that is wrong, we should show active support to any group who is getting dual discrimination in any community.
There was some discussion around the act of keeping talking, keeping listening, hearing one another's stories and narratives. In many ways the worst thing we can do about something we find difficult to understand is to not talk about it; we should talk more about what we're finding hard and hopefully that will help us find and be bought together with groups of people who can help us understand more. Suzanne Moore and her poor response to the challenge about her Brazilian Transexual remark was raised; I said I felt that the whole shebang highlighted the need for ALL of us to learn to challenge better, learn to take challenge better and not be afraid to say "I am sorry I have caused hurt, I will go away and learn a bit more - with the expectation that we should all be learning all the time and when you have hurt someone it isn't bad to say sorry or be challenged on it it is an opportunity to improve". I don't think we should say "oh no, don't say mean things about Julie Birchill cos she's a good feminist really". No she bloody well isn't, she's a hateful transphobic attention seeking noisy obnoxious person who has a lot of unpleasant views which she is using to get media space and airtime at the expense of basic safety and dignity of trans women. Anything less is me throwing trans women's basic rights away...
Someone talked about how in LGBT communities we like to think of ourselves as clued up and fluffy and nice about equalities/diversity, yet we carry baggage of racism, a person of mixed-heritage talked of passing as white so witnesses a great deal of hurtful racism within LGBT spaces, issues around misogyny and someone said as a male person was witness to a lot of that. We (in LGBT spaces) need to stop thinking of ourselves as automatically having a "fluffy and nice" card, and actually challenge discrimination within our communities by saying it's not acceptable and being willing and able to call people out for racist or sexist remarks etc.
Someone else asked the question "what is normal" one of the panellists was a mathematician in a past life and gave a mathmo answer; another panel answer was everyone is normal, my normal, your normal, different normals. Someone else on the panel said they didn't necessarily wish to be normal and that for them their queer/LGBT identity was about not being normal and just fitting in which I said I agreed with to some degree when it was my turn. I talked about how to describe my students in every day work with "norms" things like trying to change my language from "normal students sit their exams in X" to "the extra time exam room is sat in Y" so taking normality out of it; but that it is something I think about a fair bit and what about things like Braille and BSL which will probably never go mainstream but are powerful access issues for those people who use/need them.
The panel was then interrupted as a speaker from United Colours an LGBT BME (people of colour) group had managed to come along to replace the original billed speaker who could no longer make it.
W talked of his experiences growing up in Jamaica as a black gay man and the very homophobic society in Jamaica from preachers in churches down to prejudices by people. He explained how in Jamaica it is common for houses where gay people live to be attacked and gay people to be beaten up. He also talked about language used about gay people "Batty man" and similar which I appreciated having explained carefully as I struggle with new words especially if the speaker has a foreign-to-me accent.
W also talked about some classes of gay people being able to "get by" in Jamaica and that it is poorer gay people who suffer the most. If they try to report abuse to the police, they are likely to be hassled by the police as well and asked which of the male partners is the woman in a relationship etc. Homelessness is very common amongst gay people in Jamaica. When there was plans in the Jamaican gay communities to have a Pride March they didn't even manage to get a plan going before people opposed to this gathered with weapons like pick axes and machetes to stop them. It is common in Jamaica for gay people to be assumed to be paedophiles and have sex with children even amongst people who are otherwise not especially prejudiced by the standards.
W talked of his experiences coming to the UK where he still experienced and experiences dual discrimination on the basis of his ethnicity and sexuality. He described some black communities in the UK as being homophpbic and exporting Caribbean beliefs to the UK. He talked of some places in Birmingham which were still unsafe to be out as LGBT in, and that the preachers in the churches are denouncing "homosexuality" and people in the community are playing the music and that is acting like the preachers. He explained some of the lyrics to a popular track which is in Jamaican Patois which basically says kill all the gays I think I didn't manage to make accurate notes as I was handwriting.
W talked of the pressure to marry in West Indian communities, if you get to a certain age the preacher in the church may insist on you having counselling with them or trying to constantly matchmake you with eligible women. W talked of friends of his who had felt they needed to go ahead with the marriage to be accepted by their families as not only coming out risked being outcast but refusing to conform to an expectation of marriage and kids by a certain age.
W said he has decided not to care about the black community homophobia or anyone's issue with his sexuality and has a partner who is also black and gay. He said he wishes to be proud and speak out for black gays. It was at this point he told us this was the first time he has spoken publicly about his sexuality and he welcomed the safe space created by the IEDP to do so. I would not have believed this was his first time because he was so good although he has had some training in the past as a teacher which shows.
He talked a little about his experiences of going to LGBT spaces in the UK where he would usually get asked "do you know this is a gay space" (shades of BiCon's fail all over again) and interestingly this is more likely to happen more insistently from black security staff.
W finished on discussing what he would like to see done to change things and improve things for he better. He thinks Black gay people need to be getting out into schools to show "young black kids" that being gay is OK and that if you are having gay feelings that is alright. Education is the answer and that is how we need to improve things, show the young people that the homophobia in their communities is not OK and can be challenged and fought against. He also talked about going into churches and working with them and educating them and trying to reduce homophobia being preached from the pulpit.
After W had finished, David was quick to make sure W was asked if he would join the panel (if he wanted to), we did a quick chairs rejigging and I went back to the panel side - I was sat audience-side to lipread speakers.
The first question from the floor was for E asking if she felt psychologists and psychiatrists should be removed from gender-transition processes. She said she felt they had a purpose for people who needed their kind of expertise (I think I can see how psychologists could be useful as I know someone training in health psychology to help people with emotional impact of physical illnesses) but they shouldn't be gatekeepers to the process or involved in a diagnostic context.
The second question was more of a comment reflecting that there were also issues with homophobia and violence towards LGBT people within some ethnic minority communities and how their LGBT centre in a city with high ethnic minority population and orgs are trying to do work to engage with communities and individuals to improve that and how it isn't quick or something which has easy answers. An example of the kind of scary situation some people face was given but I won't go into detail as I feel it was confidential to that space.
The next comment was about employers and how to avoid tribunals from employees they needed to see why it matters to be aware, friendly, non prejudicial and discriminatory. I think we all pretty much agreed that that was the case for lots of equalities and diversity work. I have thoughts about different arguments as "social justice" and "cos it's the right thing to do" don't seem to work with everyone. There's moral, social, legal and business models for this kind of thing with pros and cons of each. It's finding the language and context to engage with different organisations and spaces as needed. I think a key aspect of any E&D work has to be the ability to adapt your approach, language and method to some degree to suit your audience - and how to do that without compromising principles (or do we accept that as a cost because the benefit in a medium/long term is worth it I wonder?).
The next question was for W asking him what he felt the message needing to be given to the homophobic musicians in the black communities was. He said he felt that people should not buy their music (and I wonder if that also means not supporting it being played, I was at univ of Sheffield as a student when we banned Eminem over homophobic lyrics as per our gay friendly policy). He also said he felt many of them were behaviourally not straight which is an interesting slant on things.
The next comment/question was about asylum seekers and how we shouldn't be smug about being any better than Jamaica given that we treat LGBT asylum seekers appallingly. W talked of his personal experience of dealing with immigration and how as a gay person he was extra lonely because he didn't have family members to support him through a gruelling process and homophobic attitudes about whether he was sure he was gay.
W talked a little about Uganda and Nigeria and the scary anti-LGBT laws which are happening out there. He referenced the many ex-commonwealth countries which have LGBT-phobic laws and talked a bt more about what that means. I managed to get Dave to let me have the mic before the final question because I noticed no one else said anything about why the ex-commonwealth countries have homophobic laws. I had a little rant about this being a hold over from British colonialism and that WE as in Brits are responsible for that and we should be really careful not to "point fingers at them backwards people over there" but recognise our part in the mess LGBT people are suffering as a result. I also said I felt that we should recognise the continued influence of American fundamentalist LGBTphobic religious movements going out to African countries and putting vast amounts of money and time into stirring up and maintaining the LGBTphobia... I suggested people looked at some of the recent guardian articles by African LGBT people talking about their experiences and also that "homophobia" is not African, it's been bought in.
Someone mentioned 10th March and some kind of day which I completely didn't hear. I have Googled it and I think it must be International Women's day. The suggestion was that as many delegates work in local authorities/councils that they should try and get a recognition of how our British immigration service treats asylum seekers into any public speeches and similar so that it is acknowledged and we're not just pretending all is fluffy but actually shining a light on that practice and condemning it.
The panel had to end at that point as we ran out of time. Looking back at what I've typed out it is amazing how much we managed to get covered and how good it was to see different issues linked in and connected to one another in a space where people felt safe to ask/share and were interested to listen and learn.
There was then a brief sort of "advertisement" session from someone who's company had provided some sponsorship for the event. He had 15 mins scheduled and used about 5 which was probably about right given it was pre-lunch and stuff. He was advertising the websites Diversity Jobs http://www.diversityjobs.co.uk and The Big Idea http://www.thebigidea.co.uk which I haven't had a chance to look at but will do when I'm more awake. The I.D.E.A is an acronym (I=inclusion, D=diversity, E=equality. A=access) and the website seems to be a forum to discuss equalities issues and has blogs and stuff. This speaker managed to make being salesy amusing and laughing at his own stereotype rather than tedious or Too Much which was nice.
We then got lunch!!! The food was actually really nice, they had bread with some kid of savoury plum sauce drizzled on it + hummous; couscous; a beef noodle thing and some pasties which were vegetarian and had mushrooms in them and some cube shaped chips which were quite salty (YUM). They had little toffee things for dessert which I didn't like the look of so had extra savoury food for seconds once I knew there was enough veggie food to go back for more. The beef thing was slightly.
I chatted to the people at my original table including B I know from Brum Bi scene who I'd abandoned for lipreading purposes (I had TWO chairs :D) and caught up with them and what they had thought. There were 2 people from the Legal Ombudsman, one of the IEDP board Mary-Ann and an ex board member who was still active and someone from the diversityjobs organisation.
While I was eating a woman approached me to ask if I would talk to her org which is linked to CAB about disability access at HE, the irony of being asked about something I'd put as a throwaway line in my intro amused me. While I was writing my contact details down I realised she was talking to my back so I had to tell her I'd not heard anything she'd said while I was facing away which she was thankfully nice AND not too omgsorryloop about, she apologised and repeated herself. I need to look her up and see if it's something I can wrangle out of work time as I am conscious of my limited spoons and giving my time away for free or whether organisations who can pay people should find someone who needs the quids. Can find out more when she emails me. Linda Bellos also approached me to let me know the bi report flyer was good and she would put a link on IEDP's website as an important link :). I also had a chat with Dave Viney at some point about the bi report, I'm going to email him the links to it and I have some leftover flyers for it which I'll take up to the LGBT centre when I go and chat to them about bisexuality which I'm happy to do as its local and I can do that easily.
Towards the end of the lunch break I went for a wander around the room, looking at the funkeh furniture which didn't look comfortable and the view onto New Street and shops and tram works. I decided to sit at the table where Linda Bellos was chatting to someone cos she seemed interesting and friendly. She was talking about some of her history and stuff and I realised she's a lot older than she looks. Towards the end of this conversation that more people had gravitated to Linda was expounding enthusiastically about in many ways how much better things are for LGB people than 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago which I do agree with in many ways. It was amusing when Mary-Ann came over as if to remind us it was sessions start again and had that nice "Oh look Linda has a captive audience and is on a roll aww" look and said as much. But Linda and Mary-Ann were fascinating to listen to and genuinely funny and nice. Every time I see the name Mary-Ann I think of Tales of The City which I kept meaning to say to her :)
The afternoon session had the second panel with two speakers and the round table discussion.
The first speaker was D who has done a lot of work with local authorities and schools to challenge homophobic bullying. Her speech was very interesting because she challenged the view that things have changed and got better, she very much felt that a lot of things were described as changed but not actually done so. D referenced the Metro Youth Chances work which was research and a report into LGBT 16-25yr old people's experiences which show mental health issues are as prevalent in young people as they were 10 years ago and many schools are avoiding dealing with LGBT issues despite the creation and existence of good quality resources via Schools Out an organisation set up to make schools safe for LGBT people and Stonewall's extensive education resources.
D raised a number of points about people's reactions to civil partnerships not always being joyful and positive as in her and her partner and family's experience but also wider. It was apparent that a lot of her activism was driven by her and her children's personal experiences.
It is still too easy in E&D work for organisations to tick the "we've done that" box without having actually changed outcomes or made any difference to the groups they should be making a difference to. Who monitors the impact of policies and ensures that they are actually being adhered to. Many local authorities will only employ people who have an XYZ policy, but no one ever looks beyond the words to the actions to see if it is being complied with.
Over 44 academies have Section 28 a-like wording and apparently this is legal (I must RTFM that) and some have refused to remove this LGB phobic stuff from their "equalities policy".
D also discussed Claire Balding and her going out to Sochi and how we tend to hone in on celebrity LGBT people and expect them to represent ALL the groups they are part of even if they have never asked for that.
D also discussed the pros and cons of the Internet, it's a great resource for information for LGBT people who aren't yet out (if they can access it behind filters I thought!) and there are a lot of resources but they are still not as easy to find as they should be and there is still a lack of in-person services since "austerity" and outside Manchester, London and Brighton for LGBT people.
She also said that the Internet is 24/7 bullying and everything is public which I actually disagree with slightly. In some ways Internet bullying is easier to tackle than other types because it can be more easily recorded by screenshots and similar and taken to the authorities to deal with - a tangible evidence trail. I think there has always been bullying outside of school time - my sister used to get followed in the street by local girls who screamed abuse at her in evenings and weekends. I got bullied outside of school as well as in it, the Internet was a great safe space and I did not take any crap from people who attempted to bully me. I also disagree about the "nothing is private" because things can be locked down to some degree. There is merit in "say nothing online you wouldn't want public" but some spaces can be locked down, blogging platforms like this one Dreamwidth can be filtered and I do make use of friends limited spaces and take relative amounts of risk in different spaces. Now I do agree about digital footprints and young people maybe saying things that they would later like taken down or removed, but that's a matter of education and I don't think it outweighs the positives...
I liked one of D's questions about what to change about equality needing to be near the top of the agenda or it gets buried in the TODO on top of that. She good stuff about needing to challenge this idea of LGBTness being a choice and asked the audience the classic "when did you decide you were straight" which reminded me of the 'heterosexual questionnaire' which we used to use in LGB awareness weeks at uni.
We need to remember that everything isn't all nice and easy for young LGBT people, with 1 in 8 still being kicked out of home for their LGBTness and not all families are supportive. We need to keep challenging LGBTphobic language.
The final speaker of the day was S a diversity manager for Co-Op group. She said a lot of things about Co-op which did feel a bit like a sales pitch. It reminded me of the Dragon session at the Assistive Tech seminars I went to last year where sales figures and global wossnames covered in a bit more detail than I felt was relevant for a short slot. I really don't do well in corporate things, I glaze over...
It sounds like the Co-Op do a lot of good stuff for "inclusion" which is they keyword, they recognise that it took them a long time to get staff LGBT networks up and running and they talked of the importance of an active network but they didn't say HOW they got from 2 people to a committee of 16, a big magazine and several hundred members across various parts of what is a very large community focussed organisation.
I think there was a lot of stuff that was good in the Co-Op's work but it was a lot about the awards they have won, and got. They've had stonewall awards and homo hero awards, but these are also to some degree popularity contests and they have clearly got good PR going with social media and have thousands of followers which means if they publicise something it hits a wider audience which is interesting, but feels a bit corporate to me which I instinctively dislike.
She did make some very useful points about very senior buy-in and how important it is to have that support from the top.
I would have liked to have had a conversation with S and E from the bi community who also works for a similar organisation and has done some great work on bi inclusion as I think someone who translates corporate to English would be useful. I realise that I am just heavily meh about to corporate stuff, I REALLY hate it and it's like my brain just switches off and says "Get Stuffed". I had it when working for Lehman and trying to do management modules during my degree...
So I'd blame me and not S for this poor writeup of her session cos other people found usefulness in it. I did like her opening comment about organisations holding a mirror up to themselves and how they can do that.
I remembered there were some more panel questions but I wrote the notes in the sessions rather than panel bits so I've misremembered that. Perils of nasty handwriting notes instead of having tech on hand! Note to self, take a netbook next time!
&nsbp;
The final part of the day was round-table discussions with 6-8 people per table and I went back to my original table. We were to come up with two positive things people could do for equality and diversity; list two concerns about E&D and two things that the IEDP might be able as a voluntary heavy organisation to do constructively. The previous seminar they hadn't been clear enough that the IEDP is largely membership supported and relies heavily on volunteer work cos they got lots of suggestions which they couldn't implement with current resourcing and setup.
Our group seemed to like the idea of staff networks as a positive thing. I think they can be, but I am also a bit wary of them as they can LOOK very shiny but not necessarily reflect a genuinely inclusive organisation behind them. We had a good discussion about the purpose of the network, and the case of one corporate organisation who re-launched their staff LGBT network as it had become a purely social group and the employer said that unless they got some value back from the group they wouldn't provide them with funding. I personally feel staff networks need to be clearly defined and it needs to be upfront what is being offered and what the cost of that is to the staff. I have experienced situations where staff networks are used to constantly "educate the employer" rather than my preference which is a "safer peer supportive space" for the employees of a particular network and I think might be possible to find a middle ground where there is safer time as well as using the group to improve things like questionnaire/survey wording like an LGBT network improving the sexual orientation/gender questions without being too onerous on the employees. There was also rightful raising of employee networks only working in large organisations, and not much use for people in small employers and what works for a large organisation works less for small. There was pondering how the IEDP could collate or produce something useful for people outside of large organisations.
We also discussed what the implementation issues around a staff network might be, e.g facilities time for people to attend (and how that doesn't work for some staff tied to their desk which was the experience of some people at our table); facilities and resources such as venue, admin time, publicity printing, a small budget,
I can't remember what we wrote down as our concerns other than staff network purpose not necessarily being ideal all round. I was losing the spoons to hear and remember by this point and our table all agreed our discussion had got stuck on "employment" when many of us also wanted to discuss service delivery but didn't really know how to link that to LGBT I think. For LGB certainly service delivery isn't an issue many of us felt we'd come across, I don't think we have a massive culture of "we won't serve you cos you're as lesbian/bisexual" although I realise Trans people may have a very different experience. Also if one follows J's first 3 steps for how to treat trans people it is effectively jobdone in service delivery terms!
The very few service-refusals on LGBT grounds I know of went viral on social media very quickly and the organisation backtracked bigtime and they are rare. A sad contrast to the lack of attention refusal of (accessible and appropriate) service given to disabled people which happens every day to hundreds of people that I know.
Maybe for LGBT people employment is a bigger aspect than service delivery in terms of negative impact. Looking at the different strands and their different needs and experiences in terms of Equality Act structure of strand group, environment e.g service delivery, employment, education and then type of discrimination. I can't find off hand the 3-way chart which shows what the EA does and doesn't cover across those 3 axes cos I know cos pre EA the DDA didn't cover indirect discrimination for disability but now does etc.
I think for LGBT strands networks can be a positive thing, because it's a way of an org saying "we officially support LGBT people existing and having rights" and maybe I am spoiled by being in a HEI sector which to me does feel LGBT friendly as a whole. Even people who don't know much about say bi and trans, aren't nasty, just not-knowledgeable and often are willing to ask questions or listen and learn.
Maybe if I'd been intelligent or awake I'd have read my bisexuality report for ideas of things we could have discussed. I wonder if also we were all a bit too tired for decent discussion at that time of day after the sessions. Hard to gauge how tired others were, I suspect I had lost the plot by 2pm so was finding things much harder than others.
Still useful to have time to discuss things with the table and I decided I wasn't going to shy away from being "ugh corporate, not my bag" and genuinely wary of staff networks being used to educate employers because it is SO easy for that to happen and I'm currently "a bit sick of that" at the moment, especially when our education is then ignored.... I resent using my energy to help them tick a box which says "consulted with X" when I know consult=ignore.
Some ideas which did come up for what IEDP could do was collate existing good practice and disseminate it. Put orgs in touch with one another to do cross-training e.g train one another on their relevant strands. An IEDP board member did mention at one point that IEDP were happy to draft FOI requests to public sector organisations and government bodies which people I know say works. Having experience of government wrangling is useful and might be something they could do in terms of drafting some templates for people to see.
We did feedback and comparison of stuff but I was too tired to do notes. there was some good feedback but we had got a bit short of time which was a bit of a shame but discussion more useful than feeding back as IEDP will upload summaries of the flipcharts to the website soon.
Apparently (I hadn't realised) I get a year's membership of the IEDP as a 'payment in kind' for my speaking today so I shall see what they have kicking around their website once that's working.
All in all the day was very useful and I do like the IEDP as a small human organisation which still seems to embody the sorts of activism that I like. I think given some support they could be quite interesting and more useful to small organisations than some of the larger orgs. I will probably look into their accreditation and see what it is like, although £350 is a bit out of my comfort zone for a basic accreditation... But might be a useful thing to have... Hmm. I can think of some people looking at doing E&D work who might be more interested in it than I am.
The idea of each of the seminars is to focus on a single/group of Equality Act protected characteristics and look at other intersections to that.
Seminar breakdown
The day was split into two parts separated by a lunch provided by the IEDP. There were two panels and 6 speakers. I shall use initials for all of them as I am not sure some of them are safe to be outed and don't wish to make them stand out because of that.
I have linked to each functional section of the day so readers can skip to that part of this post as I have just burbled my brain out onto the keyboard.
Panel 1 - morning chaired by David Viney from Birmingham LGBT
1) E from Gender Matters discussing trans and trans-feminine issues and perspective.
2) Me Natalya Dell, "professional" bisexual discussing bisexuality within and outwith LGB(T).
3) J from Gender Matters discussing trans and trans-masculine issues and perspective.
Panel Q&A part 1
4) W from United Colours an LGBT group for people of colour (BME) discussing being black and gay.
Panel 2 - afternoon
5) D LGBT activist and educator discussing LGBT equality in education and public sector
6) S Diversity manager from Co-Op group discussing inclusion within Co-Op
Round table discussions for the rest of the event.
Opening remarks and info about IEDP
The seminar was opened by Linda Bellos the chair of the IEDP board whose name I have seen around (especially on twitter recently cos of Friday's Rainbow Intersectionality event. Linda talked a little about the IEDP and why it was created and how important it is to look outwards. She discussed the issues of boxing people one box, more than one box, multiple boxes and it's clear from a quick Google cos I didn't know much about Linda Bellow before the seminar that intersectionality is something Linda has been fighting for for a long time before it was a more widely accepted concept and indeed word taken up.
The IEDP is a relatively small organisation who are actively seeking members because they receive no money or funding on a regular basis from outside. It was notable no rude remarks were made about the EHRC (less is more which made me laugh cos the EHRC were useless AND patronising to me when I tried to get them to help me with our friends HMRC and disability discrimination). The IEDP's aim was to raise standards of Equality and diversity work because anyone can call themselves an Equality and Diversity practitioner and quite often they do regardless of their skills and quality of their work. I have a lot of experience of pan-equality people who get hung up on one strand to expense of all else, and it is very difficult if not actually impossible to be good and strong on all strands and areas especially if overworked and low on time and energy to commit to what is constant learning and engagement.
The lack of external funding for IEDP means they didn't suffer too badly under AusterityTM because they were used to running a lot on a voluntary basis. Like bi community events, I recognsise the professionality of materials and publicity and website yet shoestring budgets and heavy reliance on volunteer time and energy.
The hope is that the IEDP can find ways of effectively using what resources and skills they have to link groups up and share experiences, avoid re-inventing the wheel. They also hope to be able to keep doing events which aren't just in London an they recognised that they hadn't done this round in NI, Wales or Scotland but hopefully that's a thing they'll manage in the next year.
E from Gender Matters - 1st panellist
E from Gender Matters was the first panel speaker taking about transgender issues in general and a bit about her personal experience and trans feminine issues and perspectives. I liked E's controversial statement of "Equality cannot exist - discuss" but I'm not sure she actually really covered it - it seemed a bit incongruous (unless my brain simply forgot all that was said).
E talked about the Equality Act and what it does and does not do, sadly the concept of dual discrimination which is inherently intersectional got nobbled at some point in committees before the act went live. I think many people would agree with E that the Equality act does not go far enough although in some ways it is an impressive piece of social engineering. E didn't say that trans people have reasons to be V Unhappy with the EA cos it reverses some of the basic rights from the Gender Recognition Act but I want people to know that here.
E then discussed some aspects of trans and different groups within the transgender "umbrella" as it is apparent Gender Matters is very open in its inclusion of non-binary identified people. She also discussed aspects of transexual experience and how outdated it is, being gate-kept by psychologists and psychiatrists who can tell "patients" that their clothes are inappropriate in a way which would not be tolerated by any other group of "patients". While some things are better since the Equality Act for trans people in that anyone can see their GP and request referral to a gender identity clinic it is still very slow; the real life experience (or test) is horrendous forcing trans people to live/work/socialise as a gender they may not be able to pass well as well as they could with treatment before being allowed to continue.
E talked of her hopes for the future where the process of support for people who wish to transition in some way being less medicalised and more trans-person led with informed consent and less slow and hindered by the medical and legal systems.
Me Natalya Dell - being a professional bisexual
After E it was swiftly onto me where I added a bit more to my intro in response to Linda Bellos's opening comments, namely that I was a disabled person and disabled students' adviser in my day job and that the bi community like the IEDP had suffered less in austerity cos we weren't used to having a lot of money either before mostly sticking to my script as outlined in my previous blogpost about this. I added a little bit about the bisexual asylum seeker asked very intrusive questions as outlined by Milena Popova in the Huffington Post recently.
Tea and coffee break - yay caffeine
We then had a tea and coffee break during which I had a little chat with some reps from Lancashire police services who asked who the biphobic hatecrimes force was (and were relieved it wasn't them!). I talked with them a little about hatecrimes before getting a nice surprise when someone, S, who I had only met once IRL before, but whose work (and piles of cranky assistive tech) I inherited in my dayjob came and sat next to me. S's ghost at work is still alive and well over 6 years since she left which says a lot about how well respected, liked and professional she was. S is now training to be an Equality and Diversity person and wasn't sure I was the same Natalya she knew. We had a good chat about all sorts of stuff and I hope she'll come and say hello to us at the workplace sometime! Small world!
J from Gender Matters 3rd panellist
After the coffee break we were onto J from Gender matters who has the same issue that I do about trying not to swear when being a professional-wossname. He was really interesting and made it very clear that the trans-masculine experience is not just a reverse of trans-feminine experiences it is different in many positive and negative ways. J talked about the lower risk that trans-masculine people often face in daily life is paired with increased invisibility. Apparently some stats say that for every 4 "trans women" there is only one "trans man", and J discussed some of the issues around stats. I find it fascinating that when we initially gender-divide stuff like that (probably wrongly) in society that it is always 4:1, dyslexia, Autism spectrum etc etc. There are lots of good reasons trans-masculine people may not historically or currently choose to go down a medical transgender route which hits the stats.
J also discussed the issues around transitioning in gender terms not happening in a vacuum, there are families which may come with someone, or have to be left behind; there may be a partner who sticks around (or has to be left behind) and asked the very valid question "What is the sexual orientation of a person who's partner has transitioned to a different gender from that which they appeared to be at the start of the relationship" - there clearly isn't an answer but it's not as straight forward to say presumed-straight male partner of a person who transitions from female to more male identified becomes bisexual or gay or...
J also talked a lot about physical characteristics, gender roles and gendered social skills and how that affects passing and living as a gender that you have not been socialised in from birth. There are different views amongst trans community people about how much individuals choose to declare or acknowledge "trans history" with good reasons for different choices. It made me think about areas of controversy and how nice it was to see two trans people openly disagreeing with one another but nicely and with love and affection and it being OK. It reminds those of us "learning" about an axes of oppression which we don't live to remember those areas of controversy and try to find ways of not judging or taking sides but being open minded to let people direct us in their choices (and not just applying to trans, but all sorts of stuff, deafness, race, disability etc etc). And that sometimes the choices might depend on context whether you're "in group" or not e.g. I usually wouldn't initiate the use of the term "crip" with my disabled students but I might with disabled friends or when talking informally.
J ended his presentation with his view on the essentials for how to treat him and other trans people:
1) Respect me as a human being
2) Get my name right
3) Get my pronoun right
4) Gimme coffee!
Even if you do not understand the intricacies, or details, it should be easy to show respect and apply it. I really liked that "here's the short answer to take away".
Panel Questions and Answers part 1
After J we started the panel questions and discussion for E, J and myself which was chaired by Dave Viney. Dave had chatted with us all before the panel and we'd agreed we'd focus the questions on intersectionality first, then LG B and T and how we can work together and then a free for all. I think we sort of did that in a back and forth way and it was a useful idea to think of themes before we started.
One of the comments raised was the sharedness of many experiences such as the commonality of world-experience between some trans-masculine or trans male people and butch dykes; e.g. in toilets can be challenged for being in "wrong toilets" and how to manage that depending on actual self-identity vs self-preservation etc.
Someone raised the point that several of us speakers had referred to "the other side", who were this other side. Where there times we too are the other side in other people's narratives. Example given of gay Muslim groups getting "terrorists" shouted at them in Pride marches and how we should ALL take responsibility for challenging that shit and if we (as we hope) believe that is wrong, we should show active support to any group who is getting dual discrimination in any community.
There was some discussion around the act of keeping talking, keeping listening, hearing one another's stories and narratives. In many ways the worst thing we can do about something we find difficult to understand is to not talk about it; we should talk more about what we're finding hard and hopefully that will help us find and be bought together with groups of people who can help us understand more. Suzanne Moore and her poor response to the challenge about her Brazilian Transexual remark was raised; I said I felt that the whole shebang highlighted the need for ALL of us to learn to challenge better, learn to take challenge better and not be afraid to say "I am sorry I have caused hurt, I will go away and learn a bit more - with the expectation that we should all be learning all the time and when you have hurt someone it isn't bad to say sorry or be challenged on it it is an opportunity to improve". I don't think we should say "oh no, don't say mean things about Julie Birchill cos she's a good feminist really". No she bloody well isn't, she's a hateful transphobic attention seeking noisy obnoxious person who has a lot of unpleasant views which she is using to get media space and airtime at the expense of basic safety and dignity of trans women. Anything less is me throwing trans women's basic rights away...
Someone talked about how in LGBT communities we like to think of ourselves as clued up and fluffy and nice about equalities/diversity, yet we carry baggage of racism, a person of mixed-heritage talked of passing as white so witnesses a great deal of hurtful racism within LGBT spaces, issues around misogyny and someone said as a male person was witness to a lot of that. We (in LGBT spaces) need to stop thinking of ourselves as automatically having a "fluffy and nice" card, and actually challenge discrimination within our communities by saying it's not acceptable and being willing and able to call people out for racist or sexist remarks etc.
Someone else asked the question "what is normal" one of the panellists was a mathematician in a past life and gave a mathmo answer; another panel answer was everyone is normal, my normal, your normal, different normals. Someone else on the panel said they didn't necessarily wish to be normal and that for them their queer/LGBT identity was about not being normal and just fitting in which I said I agreed with to some degree when it was my turn. I talked about how to describe my students in every day work with "norms" things like trying to change my language from "normal students sit their exams in X" to "the extra time exam room is sat in Y" so taking normality out of it; but that it is something I think about a fair bit and what about things like Braille and BSL which will probably never go mainstream but are powerful access issues for those people who use/need them.
Nice surprise 4th panellist W from United Colours
The panel was then interrupted as a speaker from United Colours an LGBT BME (people of colour) group had managed to come along to replace the original billed speaker who could no longer make it.
W talked of his experiences growing up in Jamaica as a black gay man and the very homophobic society in Jamaica from preachers in churches down to prejudices by people. He explained how in Jamaica it is common for houses where gay people live to be attacked and gay people to be beaten up. He also talked about language used about gay people "Batty man" and similar which I appreciated having explained carefully as I struggle with new words especially if the speaker has a foreign-to-me accent.
W also talked about some classes of gay people being able to "get by" in Jamaica and that it is poorer gay people who suffer the most. If they try to report abuse to the police, they are likely to be hassled by the police as well and asked which of the male partners is the woman in a relationship etc. Homelessness is very common amongst gay people in Jamaica. When there was plans in the Jamaican gay communities to have a Pride March they didn't even manage to get a plan going before people opposed to this gathered with weapons like pick axes and machetes to stop them. It is common in Jamaica for gay people to be assumed to be paedophiles and have sex with children even amongst people who are otherwise not especially prejudiced by the standards.
W talked of his experiences coming to the UK where he still experienced and experiences dual discrimination on the basis of his ethnicity and sexuality. He described some black communities in the UK as being homophpbic and exporting Caribbean beliefs to the UK. He talked of some places in Birmingham which were still unsafe to be out as LGBT in, and that the preachers in the churches are denouncing "homosexuality" and people in the community are playing the music and that is acting like the preachers. He explained some of the lyrics to a popular track which is in Jamaican Patois which basically says kill all the gays I think I didn't manage to make accurate notes as I was handwriting.
W talked of the pressure to marry in West Indian communities, if you get to a certain age the preacher in the church may insist on you having counselling with them or trying to constantly matchmake you with eligible women. W talked of friends of his who had felt they needed to go ahead with the marriage to be accepted by their families as not only coming out risked being outcast but refusing to conform to an expectation of marriage and kids by a certain age.
W said he has decided not to care about the black community homophobia or anyone's issue with his sexuality and has a partner who is also black and gay. He said he wishes to be proud and speak out for black gays. It was at this point he told us this was the first time he has spoken publicly about his sexuality and he welcomed the safe space created by the IEDP to do so. I would not have believed this was his first time because he was so good although he has had some training in the past as a teacher which shows.
He talked a little about his experiences of going to LGBT spaces in the UK where he would usually get asked "do you know this is a gay space" (shades of BiCon's fail all over again) and interestingly this is more likely to happen more insistently from black security staff.
W finished on discussing what he would like to see done to change things and improve things for he better. He thinks Black gay people need to be getting out into schools to show "young black kids" that being gay is OK and that if you are having gay feelings that is alright. Education is the answer and that is how we need to improve things, show the young people that the homophobia in their communities is not OK and can be challenged and fought against. He also talked about going into churches and working with them and educating them and trying to reduce homophobia being preached from the pulpit.
Panel Questions and answers part 2
After W had finished, David was quick to make sure W was asked if he would join the panel (if he wanted to), we did a quick chairs rejigging and I went back to the panel side - I was sat audience-side to lipread speakers.
The first question from the floor was for E asking if she felt psychologists and psychiatrists should be removed from gender-transition processes. She said she felt they had a purpose for people who needed their kind of expertise (I think I can see how psychologists could be useful as I know someone training in health psychology to help people with emotional impact of physical illnesses) but they shouldn't be gatekeepers to the process or involved in a diagnostic context.
The second question was more of a comment reflecting that there were also issues with homophobia and violence towards LGBT people within some ethnic minority communities and how their LGBT centre in a city with high ethnic minority population and orgs are trying to do work to engage with communities and individuals to improve that and how it isn't quick or something which has easy answers. An example of the kind of scary situation some people face was given but I won't go into detail as I feel it was confidential to that space.
The next comment was about employers and how to avoid tribunals from employees they needed to see why it matters to be aware, friendly, non prejudicial and discriminatory. I think we all pretty much agreed that that was the case for lots of equalities and diversity work. I have thoughts about different arguments as "social justice" and "cos it's the right thing to do" don't seem to work with everyone. There's moral, social, legal and business models for this kind of thing with pros and cons of each. It's finding the language and context to engage with different organisations and spaces as needed. I think a key aspect of any E&D work has to be the ability to adapt your approach, language and method to some degree to suit your audience - and how to do that without compromising principles (or do we accept that as a cost because the benefit in a medium/long term is worth it I wonder?).
The next question was for W asking him what he felt the message needing to be given to the homophobic musicians in the black communities was. He said he felt that people should not buy their music (and I wonder if that also means not supporting it being played, I was at univ of Sheffield as a student when we banned Eminem over homophobic lyrics as per our gay friendly policy). He also said he felt many of them were behaviourally not straight which is an interesting slant on things.
The next comment/question was about asylum seekers and how we shouldn't be smug about being any better than Jamaica given that we treat LGBT asylum seekers appallingly. W talked of his personal experience of dealing with immigration and how as a gay person he was extra lonely because he didn't have family members to support him through a gruelling process and homophobic attitudes about whether he was sure he was gay.
W talked a little about Uganda and Nigeria and the scary anti-LGBT laws which are happening out there. He referenced the many ex-commonwealth countries which have LGBT-phobic laws and talked a bt more about what that means. I managed to get Dave to let me have the mic before the final question because I noticed no one else said anything about why the ex-commonwealth countries have homophobic laws. I had a little rant about this being a hold over from British colonialism and that WE as in Brits are responsible for that and we should be really careful not to "point fingers at them backwards people over there" but recognise our part in the mess LGBT people are suffering as a result. I also said I felt that we should recognise the continued influence of American fundamentalist LGBTphobic religious movements going out to African countries and putting vast amounts of money and time into stirring up and maintaining the LGBTphobia... I suggested people looked at some of the recent guardian articles by African LGBT people talking about their experiences and also that "homophobia" is not African, it's been bought in.
Someone mentioned 10th March and some kind of day which I completely didn't hear. I have Googled it and I think it must be International Women's day. The suggestion was that as many delegates work in local authorities/councils that they should try and get a recognition of how our British immigration service treats asylum seekers into any public speeches and similar so that it is acknowledged and we're not just pretending all is fluffy but actually shining a light on that practice and condemning it.
The panel had to end at that point as we ran out of time. Looking back at what I've typed out it is amazing how much we managed to get covered and how good it was to see different issues linked in and connected to one another in a space where people felt safe to ask/share and were interested to listen and learn.
Brief pre lunch sponsor 'ad' as it were
There was then a brief sort of "advertisement" session from someone who's company had provided some sponsorship for the event. He had 15 mins scheduled and used about 5 which was probably about right given it was pre-lunch and stuff. He was advertising the websites Diversity Jobs http://www.diversityjobs.co.uk and The Big Idea http://www.thebigidea.co.uk which I haven't had a chance to look at but will do when I'm more awake. The I.D.E.A is an acronym (I=inclusion, D=diversity, E=equality. A=access) and the website seems to be a forum to discuss equalities issues and has blogs and stuff. This speaker managed to make being salesy amusing and laughing at his own stereotype rather than tedious or Too Much which was nice.
They fed us - Lunch!
We then got lunch!!! The food was actually really nice, they had bread with some kid of savoury plum sauce drizzled on it + hummous; couscous; a beef noodle thing and some pasties which were vegetarian and had mushrooms in them and some cube shaped chips which were quite salty (YUM). They had little toffee things for dessert which I didn't like the look of so had extra savoury food for seconds once I knew there was enough veggie food to go back for more. The beef thing was slightly.
I chatted to the people at my original table including B I know from Brum Bi scene who I'd abandoned for lipreading purposes (I had TWO chairs :D) and caught up with them and what they had thought. There were 2 people from the Legal Ombudsman, one of the IEDP board Mary-Ann and an ex board member who was still active and someone from the diversityjobs organisation.
While I was eating a woman approached me to ask if I would talk to her org which is linked to CAB about disability access at HE, the irony of being asked about something I'd put as a throwaway line in my intro amused me. While I was writing my contact details down I realised she was talking to my back so I had to tell her I'd not heard anything she'd said while I was facing away which she was thankfully nice AND not too omgsorryloop about, she apologised and repeated herself. I need to look her up and see if it's something I can wrangle out of work time as I am conscious of my limited spoons and giving my time away for free or whether organisations who can pay people should find someone who needs the quids. Can find out more when she emails me. Linda Bellos also approached me to let me know the bi report flyer was good and she would put a link on IEDP's website as an important link :). I also had a chat with Dave Viney at some point about the bi report, I'm going to email him the links to it and I have some leftover flyers for it which I'll take up to the LGBT centre when I go and chat to them about bisexuality which I'm happy to do as its local and I can do that easily.
Towards the end of the lunch break I went for a wander around the room, looking at the funkeh furniture which didn't look comfortable and the view onto New Street and shops and tram works. I decided to sit at the table where Linda Bellos was chatting to someone cos she seemed interesting and friendly. She was talking about some of her history and stuff and I realised she's a lot older than she looks. Towards the end of this conversation that more people had gravitated to Linda was expounding enthusiastically about in many ways how much better things are for LGB people than 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago which I do agree with in many ways. It was amusing when Mary-Ann came over as if to remind us it was sessions start again and had that nice "Oh look Linda has a captive audience and is on a roll aww" look and said as much. But Linda and Mary-Ann were fascinating to listen to and genuinely funny and nice. Every time I see the name Mary-Ann I think of Tales of The City which I kept meaning to say to her :)
Afternoon sessions begin
The afternoon session had the second panel with two speakers and the round table discussion.
D 1st speaker from 2nd panel
The first speaker was D who has done a lot of work with local authorities and schools to challenge homophobic bullying. Her speech was very interesting because she challenged the view that things have changed and got better, she very much felt that a lot of things were described as changed but not actually done so. D referenced the Metro Youth Chances work which was research and a report into LGBT 16-25yr old people's experiences which show mental health issues are as prevalent in young people as they were 10 years ago and many schools are avoiding dealing with LGBT issues despite the creation and existence of good quality resources via Schools Out an organisation set up to make schools safe for LGBT people and Stonewall's extensive education resources.
D raised a number of points about people's reactions to civil partnerships not always being joyful and positive as in her and her partner and family's experience but also wider. It was apparent that a lot of her activism was driven by her and her children's personal experiences.
It is still too easy in E&D work for organisations to tick the "we've done that" box without having actually changed outcomes or made any difference to the groups they should be making a difference to. Who monitors the impact of policies and ensures that they are actually being adhered to. Many local authorities will only employ people who have an XYZ policy, but no one ever looks beyond the words to the actions to see if it is being complied with.
Over 44 academies have Section 28 a-like wording and apparently this is legal (I must RTFM that) and some have refused to remove this LGB phobic stuff from their "equalities policy".
D also discussed Claire Balding and her going out to Sochi and how we tend to hone in on celebrity LGBT people and expect them to represent ALL the groups they are part of even if they have never asked for that.
D also discussed the pros and cons of the Internet, it's a great resource for information for LGBT people who aren't yet out (if they can access it behind filters I thought!) and there are a lot of resources but they are still not as easy to find as they should be and there is still a lack of in-person services since "austerity" and outside Manchester, London and Brighton for LGBT people.
She also said that the Internet is 24/7 bullying and everything is public which I actually disagree with slightly. In some ways Internet bullying is easier to tackle than other types because it can be more easily recorded by screenshots and similar and taken to the authorities to deal with - a tangible evidence trail. I think there has always been bullying outside of school time - my sister used to get followed in the street by local girls who screamed abuse at her in evenings and weekends. I got bullied outside of school as well as in it, the Internet was a great safe space and I did not take any crap from people who attempted to bully me. I also disagree about the "nothing is private" because things can be locked down to some degree. There is merit in "say nothing online you wouldn't want public" but some spaces can be locked down, blogging platforms like this one Dreamwidth can be filtered and I do make use of friends limited spaces and take relative amounts of risk in different spaces. Now I do agree about digital footprints and young people maybe saying things that they would later like taken down or removed, but that's a matter of education and I don't think it outweighs the positives...
I liked one of D's questions about what to change about equality needing to be near the top of the agenda or it gets buried in the TODO on top of that. She good stuff about needing to challenge this idea of LGBTness being a choice and asked the audience the classic "when did you decide you were straight" which reminded me of the 'heterosexual questionnaire' which we used to use in LGB awareness weeks at uni.
We need to remember that everything isn't all nice and easy for young LGBT people, with 1 in 8 still being kicked out of home for their LGBTness and not all families are supportive. We need to keep challenging LGBTphobic language.
S diversity manager from Co-Op group 2nd panellist
The final speaker of the day was S a diversity manager for Co-Op group. She said a lot of things about Co-op which did feel a bit like a sales pitch. It reminded me of the Dragon session at the Assistive Tech seminars I went to last year where sales figures and global wossnames covered in a bit more detail than I felt was relevant for a short slot. I really don't do well in corporate things, I glaze over...
It sounds like the Co-Op do a lot of good stuff for "inclusion" which is they keyword, they recognise that it took them a long time to get staff LGBT networks up and running and they talked of the importance of an active network but they didn't say HOW they got from 2 people to a committee of 16, a big magazine and several hundred members across various parts of what is a very large community focussed organisation.
I think there was a lot of stuff that was good in the Co-Op's work but it was a lot about the awards they have won, and got. They've had stonewall awards and homo hero awards, but these are also to some degree popularity contests and they have clearly got good PR going with social media and have thousands of followers which means if they publicise something it hits a wider audience which is interesting, but feels a bit corporate to me which I instinctively dislike.
She did make some very useful points about very senior buy-in and how important it is to have that support from the top.
I would have liked to have had a conversation with S and E from the bi community who also works for a similar organisation and has done some great work on bi inclusion as I think someone who translates corporate to English would be useful. I realise that I am just heavily meh about to corporate stuff, I REALLY hate it and it's like my brain just switches off and says "Get Stuffed". I had it when working for Lehman and trying to do management modules during my degree...
So I'd blame me and not S for this poor writeup of her session cos other people found usefulness in it. I did like her opening comment about organisations holding a mirror up to themselves and how they can do that.
Second panel questions
I remembered there were some more panel questions but I wrote the notes in the sessions rather than panel bits so I've misremembered that. Perils of nasty handwriting notes instead of having tech on hand! Note to self, take a netbook next time!
&nsbp;
Round table discussions
The final part of the day was round-table discussions with 6-8 people per table and I went back to my original table. We were to come up with two positive things people could do for equality and diversity; list two concerns about E&D and two things that the IEDP might be able as a voluntary heavy organisation to do constructively. The previous seminar they hadn't been clear enough that the IEDP is largely membership supported and relies heavily on volunteer work cos they got lots of suggestions which they couldn't implement with current resourcing and setup.
Our group seemed to like the idea of staff networks as a positive thing. I think they can be, but I am also a bit wary of them as they can LOOK very shiny but not necessarily reflect a genuinely inclusive organisation behind them. We had a good discussion about the purpose of the network, and the case of one corporate organisation who re-launched their staff LGBT network as it had become a purely social group and the employer said that unless they got some value back from the group they wouldn't provide them with funding. I personally feel staff networks need to be clearly defined and it needs to be upfront what is being offered and what the cost of that is to the staff. I have experienced situations where staff networks are used to constantly "educate the employer" rather than my preference which is a "safer peer supportive space" for the employees of a particular network and I think might be possible to find a middle ground where there is safer time as well as using the group to improve things like questionnaire/survey wording like an LGBT network improving the sexual orientation/gender questions without being too onerous on the employees. There was also rightful raising of employee networks only working in large organisations, and not much use for people in small employers and what works for a large organisation works less for small. There was pondering how the IEDP could collate or produce something useful for people outside of large organisations.
We also discussed what the implementation issues around a staff network might be, e.g facilities time for people to attend (and how that doesn't work for some staff tied to their desk which was the experience of some people at our table); facilities and resources such as venue, admin time, publicity printing, a small budget,
I can't remember what we wrote down as our concerns other than staff network purpose not necessarily being ideal all round. I was losing the spoons to hear and remember by this point and our table all agreed our discussion had got stuck on "employment" when many of us also wanted to discuss service delivery but didn't really know how to link that to LGBT I think. For LGB certainly service delivery isn't an issue many of us felt we'd come across, I don't think we have a massive culture of "we won't serve you cos you're as lesbian/bisexual" although I realise Trans people may have a very different experience. Also if one follows J's first 3 steps for how to treat trans people it is effectively jobdone in service delivery terms!
The very few service-refusals on LGBT grounds I know of went viral on social media very quickly and the organisation backtracked bigtime and they are rare. A sad contrast to the lack of attention refusal of (accessible and appropriate) service given to disabled people which happens every day to hundreds of people that I know.
Maybe for LGBT people employment is a bigger aspect than service delivery in terms of negative impact. Looking at the different strands and their different needs and experiences in terms of Equality Act structure of strand group, environment e.g service delivery, employment, education and then type of discrimination. I can't find off hand the 3-way chart which shows what the EA does and doesn't cover across those 3 axes cos I know cos pre EA the DDA didn't cover indirect discrimination for disability but now does etc.
I think for LGBT strands networks can be a positive thing, because it's a way of an org saying "we officially support LGBT people existing and having rights" and maybe I am spoiled by being in a HEI sector which to me does feel LGBT friendly as a whole. Even people who don't know much about say bi and trans, aren't nasty, just not-knowledgeable and often are willing to ask questions or listen and learn.
Maybe if I'd been intelligent or awake I'd have read my bisexuality report for ideas of things we could have discussed. I wonder if also we were all a bit too tired for decent discussion at that time of day after the sessions. Hard to gauge how tired others were, I suspect I had lost the plot by 2pm so was finding things much harder than others.
Still useful to have time to discuss things with the table and I decided I wasn't going to shy away from being "ugh corporate, not my bag" and genuinely wary of staff networks being used to educate employers because it is SO easy for that to happen and I'm currently "a bit sick of that" at the moment, especially when our education is then ignored.... I resent using my energy to help them tick a box which says "consulted with X" when I know consult=ignore.
Some ideas which did come up for what IEDP could do was collate existing good practice and disseminate it. Put orgs in touch with one another to do cross-training e.g train one another on their relevant strands. An IEDP board member did mention at one point that IEDP were happy to draft FOI requests to public sector organisations and government bodies which people I know say works. Having experience of government wrangling is useful and might be something they could do in terms of drafting some templates for people to see.
We did feedback and comparison of stuff but I was too tired to do notes. there was some good feedback but we had got a bit short of time which was a bit of a shame but discussion more useful than feeding back as IEDP will upload summaries of the flipcharts to the website soon.
Closing and end
Apparently (I hadn't realised) I get a year's membership of the IEDP as a 'payment in kind' for my speaking today so I shall see what they have kicking around their website once that's working.
All in all the day was very useful and I do like the IEDP as a small human organisation which still seems to embody the sorts of activism that I like. I think given some support they could be quite interesting and more useful to small organisations than some of the larger orgs. I will probably look into their accreditation and see what it is like, although £350 is a bit out of my comfort zone for a basic accreditation... But might be a useful thing to have... Hmm. I can think of some people looking at doing E&D work who might be more interested in it than I am.
