As gender-critical belief cases succeed in the courts, Dan James Smith of the LGB Alliance Business Forum warns employers that allowing trans lobby groups to impose their ideology on workplace diversity policies risks legal challenges and reputational damage.
Equality, diversity and inclusion policies were meant to make things fairer, to ensure no one is bullied for who they are and that opportunities are open to all. But EDI has been hijacked by activists, and ordinary workplaces have become battlegrounds.
Sandie Peggie, a nurse with an unblemished 30-year career, knows this better than most. When she raised concerns about a transgender doctor, who identifies as female, using the women’s changing room at NHS Fife, she was not met with understanding or even reasoned debate; she was accused of transphobia and suspended.
Peggie’s case, heard last month and adjourned until July, shows how, with the best of intentions, EDI initiatives can hurt the very people they are designed to protect.
Gender-critical belief
Rape crisis worker wins gender-critical belief claim
It ought not to be controversial to want single-sex changing facilities where people get undressed. But today, thanks to training by activist groups, businesses have unwittingly become ideological enforcers, silencing employees who dare to dissent.
Instead of fostering real inclusion, many EDI policies sideline the very people they were meant to protect – particularly lesbians, gay men and bisexuals.
The impact extends beyond the public sector. When, as a gay man, I questioned Monzo Bank’s trans-inclusion posts on LinkedIn, some of its staff took my information without permission, posted it internally, and smeared me as transphobic. My details remained exposed on its staff communication channel for months.
The Information Commissioner’s Office slapped Monzo on the wrist, but the bank refused to apologise. The message was clear: inclusion only applies if you hold the “right” views.
Employers preach “openness” and urge employees to “bring their full selves to work”. It’s often an empty platitude. Mention gay or women’s rights, cue colleagues’ furtive glances, and then someone solemnly intones: “A woman is anyone who identifies as one.” Case closed.
Sex as a ‘spectrum’
LGB rights were hard-won. We can donate blood, serve in the armed forces, marry, and are legally protected from workplace discrimination. Yet LGB workers are now pressured to call themselves “queer”, declare pronouns, and accept that they are “same gender” attracted. Those who refuse risk being sidelined, investigated or even fired.
This is not a call for employers to favour gender-critical, sex-realists over employees who believe in gender identity. Remember, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, and trans staff are as badly served by extreme or unlawful guidance as everyone else”
This new form of homophobia is, ironically, a sign of success. As LGB people gained legal parity, the need for lobby groups declined.
Sensing the cash drying up, activists hitched their wagon to “TQ+” and repackaged their cause. Sex and sexual orientation – protected characteristics in the Equality Act – were supplanted by queer theory and the unscientific claim that sex is a “spectrum”. Those who insisted otherwise were smeared as transphobic, not least because Stonewall, until very recently, insisted so in its online LGBTQ+ glossary.
Nancy Kelley, Stonewall’s former chief executive, made her stance clear when she compared gender-critical beliefs to “sexual racism”, framing basic discussions about sex-based rights as hate speech. This emboldened some ill-informed leaders to dismiss gender-critical views as “bigotry”, leading to unlawful discrimination against employees who simply upheld existing legal protections.
Activist-driven guidance
The consequences are piling up. Companies that blindly follow activist-driven guidance risk lengthy legal battles and reputational damage. A wave of public and private sector organisations that once paid handsomely to be educated by Stonewall through its Diversity Champions scheme have now withdrawn after an independent KC-led report revealed the charity had stated the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is.
Even the UK government and major employers are backtracking. The BBC, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, various government departments, voluntary organisations, and many more have quietly withdrawn from Stonewall’s scheme, realising that outsourcing EDI policies to activists creates more problems than it solves – though some have cited financial reasons.
This is not a call for employers to favour gender-critical, sex-realists over employees who believe in gender identity. Remember, gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, and trans staff are as badly served by extreme or unlawful guidance as everyone else.
Respect every employee
So, while I welcome the ‘Great Withdrawal’ from Stonewall, there is a risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than completely abandoning efforts to make workplaces fair for LGB staff, I would like to see businesses target specific, measurable goals that respect every single employee and the law.
That’s the goal of the LGB Alliance Business Forum, which launched last month and of which I am co-chair. We want to encourage employers to ensure their policies align with the Equality Act, not the latest ideological trends.
Following activist-driven policies without legal scrutiny puts businesses at risk of costly tribunals and reputational damage. To avoid workplace strife and legal conflicts, employers could take the following steps:
- Vet external advisers carefully. If a consultant can’t explain how their advice complies with the country’s law, they shouldn’t be advising your business. Too many employers have outsourced EDI strategies to lobby groups with an ideological agenda rather than experts who understand equality law.
- Encourage diversity of thought. A workplace that punishes employees for holding lawful, differing views is not inclusive; it is oppressive. True diversity means allowing discussion and debate, not enforcing ideological conformity.
- Don’t have a stance on everything. Identity politics and ideological statements are inherently divisive. It often pays for an employer to be apolitical unless it is central to the organisation’s mission.
- Consult the right people. Policies affecting sex-based rights should involve input from women and LGB employees, not just activist lobby groups. Ignoring the perspectives of those directly affected leads to resentment, conflict and legal challenges.
- Be responsible for your own culture. Advisers advise; CEOs decide. Business leaders should have the confidence to shape the values and culture of their organisations rather than outsourcing their morality to outsiders.
As a norm, workplaces should be about fairness and merit, not a vehicle for ideological coercion. Peggie’s case is not just a scandal, it is a lesson in what happens when institutions let activist dogma override diversity of opinion.
Most organisations want happy, productive employees who speak highly of their workplace. Calling LGB employees “queer” and gagging them with a rainbow is not the way to do it.
The question now is: Will businesses and public bodies learn? Or will they keep doubling down until the tribunals – and public opinion – force them to change?
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
