Caroline Ffiske
Caroline Ffiske is a director of Conservatives for Women.
Gender ideology is so obviously ludicrous that we are all aware of the architecture of free speech suppression that is required to keep it in place.
First, the Equality Act makes ‘gender reassignment’ a protected characteristic. You cannot discriminate against someone based on a protected characteristic.
Then, astonishingly, the protected characteristic is not narrowly defined to apply to that tiny group of individuals who have gone to the lengths of obtaining a gender recognition certificate. You do not even need to begin a ‘process of transition’. You only need to be ‘proposing’ to do so. In effect, say that you have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, and you have it.
Next comes the ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’, also within the Equality Act. This requires public authorities to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between those with different protected characteristics.
Over time, these pieces of law have come to be interpreted to mean that you cannot tell a bloke that he is a bloke – that is discrimination. Nor can you prevent him from using the women’s changing rooms – that is not fostering good relations.
If you test this, the edifice of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ from the College of Policing comes into play. Call a spade a spade and you might get a visit from the police, be told to ‘check your thinking’ and have a note placed on your police record. If you are a nurse working for the NHS and you describe a bloke as a bloke because he is requiring sex-specific treatment you may find yourself subject to disciplinary proceedings and your fitness to practice as a nurse publicly questioned.
This architecture has proved so successful at costing many people their jobs and livelihoods and maintaining gender ideology in place across our institutions that it seems surprising that the ‘gender lobby’ feels much need for anything else.
That is why the silly charts are perplexing. What are they for? I first pondered this when I came across this silly chart shared by the NHS. Considering the subjects of gender identity and sexual orientation, it shows you how a person attending a medical appointment might first share his or her personal data: at home, or at the front desk, or later on.
Dumbfounded by its silliness, I was reminded of other silly charts, tables and extensive bullet points relating to the same subject.
The Financial Conduct Authority ran an EDI consultation in 2023 wherein it suggested that firms across the entire financial services sector should collect staff’s gender identity on a voluntary basis, but with a view to making this mandatory (let that sink in). The consultation included this table:
The Stonewall Workplace Equality Index (WEI) contains page after page of silly charts and growing numbers of bullets. Which bit is peak madness? “For B, funding a bi-specific strand of an LGBTQ+ Pride event”… Get your head around bullet point seven.
Also from the Stonewall WEI. Dare we say H?:
Also from the Stonewall WEI. Note the inclusion of Ace and Aro-spectrum. Points for the extra bullet, but does it render the previous charts Ace-and-Aro-phobic?:
My favourite flowchart is this, from the Sex Education Forum:
What is it all about?
Those who ponder gender ideology often look for poignant warnings from Orwell or Huxley or Milan Kundera. However, I am not sure whether Winston Smith, or Bernard Marx, or Tomas and Teresa from The Unbearable Lightness of Being were required to wrestle with this particular form of stupidity. But the title of the last gives the clue. The silly charts are designed to confer weight. Weight and legitimacy. Of course they fail miserably.
Yet there are real people in EDI jobs in large corporations and the public sector, today, who are required to spend their day wading through those Stonewall WEI charts. Do they dare to laugh? People who work at the Sex Education Forum have stood up at training sessions and explained the menstruator flow diagram to teachers. Do they keep a straight face? Yes – because the money follows.
There is a vast architecture and edifice of piffle in place designed to prop up gender ideology. Right at its base is one simple idea: men are women. But no new arrow in a flowchart, no additional bullet, no number of silly charts can make it so.
This article was originally published by the Daily Sceptic.
