Has the SRA abolished sex?

The latest SRA Diversity Questionnaire does not ask about my 'sex'.

Instead it asks for my 'gender identity'.

Since diversity statistics (and legal protections) on issues regarding men v women are only meaningful if they relate to 'sex', what is the point of this survey?

It is now not measuring a key metric, undermining its fundamental purpose.

Sex should always be asked.  Gender identity can be another question.

Who agreed to this?  

More importantly, who fills in an SRA diversity survey?

“Man”, “woman”, “male”, “female” describe gender. There are no words to describe biological sex you cis transphobic bigot

This offers a very efficient way to rebalance any pay inequality issues for some firms.

similar here

 

creepy mad ideologues have invaded equality discourse everywhere

 

what bicycles said

who was it who was asked if they saw an all male board of directors with 50% transwomen as being "gender diverse" recently?

I think that was pinko who said it had been (perhaps only half) joking raised at his shop

Questions should be:  (1) Sex  (2) Gender (if different to sex)

 

It was me who raised it.  It wasn't half-joking at my shop - someone has asked whether we should remove the word "sex" from our equal opportunities statement when advertising roles and I explained the difference in law between sex and gender (including that the legal protection afforded on recruitment is (currently) generally afforded globally on sex, not gender (apart from detriment based on gender re-assignment)

Oh and sorry the half-joke I made at a leadership team meeting was we could solve our gender pay gap by having our CEO and CFO self-ID as women

answers should be (1) None of your fckng business; and (2) see (1), supra

While I don't disagree Wang, not having data makes it very difficult for organisations to improve.  Or even comply with upcoming statutory obligations like ethnicity pay gap disclosure.  Seems employers will at least have to ask people what ethnicity they are - should be fun

My old firm got an associate who was born in Russia to tick the "Asian" box for some US equivalent.

Err Russia is a pretty large chunk of Asia tbf.  if you go and google "map of the world" it's most of the top and some of the middle.

hth

Yes, wang, I thought it was a somewhat amusing anecdote precisely because I am completely unaware that it is technically accurate ...

A fair chunk of Russia is also geographically in Eastern Europe too though, so it kinda depends which part of Russia that person hails from to legitimately tick the box. 

Joking aside, if the aim is increasing participation from BAME employees, why is it ridiculous to say that hiring Russians will increase the Asian category?  If it's just brown people we want to help, we'll have to say brown people.

Why do these things always have white British and white Irish as options but no white Welsh box to tick?

I always tick the box 'travelling people' given the time I spend in airports.

Agreed they should remive citizenship questions completely from ethnicity surveys. The white is important. The british / Irish / Russian is not.

Cam that kind of thinking it quite outdated. 

The thinking that "diversity" involves just having enough brown / disabled / lesbian people in seats, rather than a broad range of ways of thinking and backgrounds, including nationalities (also a protected characteristic) is so the noughties.  

ps - Irish people have NEVER been subjected to bias in the UK have they?  Just like dogs and blacks.  Same for Poles, Pakistanis...