Was this a business event - or a spiritual gathering? What did Stonewall say about the Supreme Court ruling? And what valuable content did employers gain from their £400 tickets?

Our host Tanya de Grunwald shares exclusive insights from her day at Stonewall's 2025 Workplace Conference - and invites Levi Pay, director of Plinth House (and former Stonewall intern!) to provide further analysis about this highly unusual event. 

They cover:

* What was it like arriving at the event with Maya Forstater, co-founder of Sex Matters? Who else had paid to attend - and who were the noisy protesters outside the venue?

* Why were there no photos, no questions - and no analysis of the Supreme Court ruling?

* Who were the speakers - and what did they cover? Why was Tanya puzzled by some of the presentations, and alarmed by those from the National Trust and Trans in the City?

* Are 'LGBT' partners with an activist agenda starting to turn on employers who they feel have let them down by respecting the Supreme Court ruling (defining 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010) - especially around the provision of single-sex spaces at work? Should big brands be worried about Pride?

* Did Stonewall's slogan 'No debate' end up creating a cohort of fragile (and sometimes volatile) young people who will struggle to integrate with their colleagues?

* Would Levi and Tanya's plans to redesign this event have improved its chances of engaging with the law, reality, disagreement, and the employers who are crying out for advice they can trust in this area?

Enjoy the episode!

Thanks to Blackbird Documentaries for permission to use the protest footage https://youtu.be/lLEoBKf1SLs?si=9DFWlKUsj6bXzukI

It’s official: self-ID was never lawful, and too many UK employers have dangerous policies in place. Why did we need the Supreme Court to tell us this – and what should employers do now?

Since the landmark ruling on 16 April, emotions have been running high, and HR teams face the daunting task of assessing and correcting their policies, while managing employee reactions from across their workforce, and hot takes from activist pressure groups and keen to overturn or circumvent the ruling. 

The CIPD has dropped the ball, so we’re picking it up, presenting HR professionals with this calm, dispassionate analysis to help you find clarity and a way forward. If you identify as sensible, this is the conversation for you.

This week’s episode features two guests: Maya Forstater (women’s rights campaigner and founder of Sex Matters) and Neil Morrison (HR director at Severn Trent). We ask:

* What does the Supreme Court ruling mean for employers? 

* If the judgement was clear, who has been creating confusion – and why?

* How have big employers reacted to the news? What mistakes does Neil think they have made?

* Which employers will find it hardest to unpick the problems they’ve woven into their organisation’s policies and culture?

* What are the legal risks for employers who don’t sort this out immediately?

* What role have Stonewall, the CIPD, confused lawyers, and poor-quality #DEI training played in leading employers down the wrong path? 

* Have employers who have got this wrong underestimated the scale of the mess they have made? Do they understand how angry some of their employees are - and is it time to apologise?

Looking back, this sort of conversation should have happened a long time ago.

Whatever your personal view on this topic, it’s become clear that ‘No debate’ belongs in the bin.

It's time to start talking...

Enjoy the episode!

As employers grapple with the Supreme Court ruling, we ask: how did ‘trans inclusion’ go so wrong at work? Have HR teams been silencing women with reasonable objections to policies which prioritise gender identity over biological sex? How much of this mess is the fault of the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD) - and can men be lesbians at work?

In this explosive, powerful and moving new episode of This Isn’t Working, women’s rights campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen delivers some truth bombs for UK employers to consider. As they examine the implications of the judge's clarification that ‘sex’ and ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex (not gender identity, or the sex stated on a person’s Gender Recognition Certificate), we ask:

Why do so many women at Kellie-Jay’s Let Women Speak events say they have been shamed and silenced by their employers after questioning ‘trans inclusion’ policies which they say distort sex-based language, and disadvantage women? 

Is it ‘transphobic’ for female employees to voice concerns about the unintended consequences of workplace policies created without their input or consent?

Do employers understand that for some trans women (biological males) there is a sexual motivation for dressing as they do, and for requesting accommodations from their colleagues? 

Is it appropriate to expect employees to welcome gender diversity trainers who are still campaigning for puberty blockers for gender-distressed children, and who champion medical transition as the best solution for gender-confused adults?

Have Barclays, Google, EY, BP, JP Morgan, Amazon, Clifford Chance, Whitbread, Metro Bank, Sky, Bloomberg, Sage and Gallagher done enough due diligence on the ‘trans awareness’ partners they have been working with? In the cold light of day, will they have regrets about the messages they have been promoting to staff over the last few years?

Has the CIPD failed in its duty to provide HR professionals with accurate and balanced information to help to create workable, legally sound policy? Has some of its advice actually *created* legal risk for employers?

If employers have made big mistakes in this area, how can they be fixed?

Enjoy the episode...

NB. This conversation was recorded just before the Supreme Court ruling - but it was never intended to be about the law! More great guests coming soon, to dig into the detail of what the Supreme Court ruling means for employers and employees...

Kellie-Jay Keen:

Let Women Speak:

Why are so many big brands insulting and confusing their customers and employees with divisive political statements – and will anyone grab the wheel before the decision-makers drive the company off a cliff?

If senior leaders have a clear political agenda (eg. Israel/Gaza, or environmentalism) or personal interest (eg. racial justice, or a trans-identifying child) should they be removed from discussions where their strong emotions create a conflict of interest?

Bud Light’s decision to work with the trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney (creating a 25% sales dive) wasn’t an isolated incident. Aviva, Ben & Jerry’s, Wickes, Starbucks, Coca Cola, Wickes, John Lewis, NatWest, Unilever, Proctor and Gamble and Virgin Active have all been burned after wandered into red-hot debates.

Is this recklessness coming from the top – or have the senior leaders lost control of activist groups at more junior levels?

Are boards broken – or just looking the other way? And why aren’t risk teams flagging the obvious legal, reputational and financial dangers here? 

This episode is packed with insights about the shadowy world of senior leadership – and analysis of what is going badly wrong in so many companies.

According to Paul Sweeney, seasoned corporate strategic advisor, and author of Magnetic Nonsense, we are watching the shattering of the ‘illusion of corporate governance’ – and it’s quite a spectacle! We discuss:

* WHAT RISK ARE COMPANIES RUNNING BY FOLLOWING ACTIVIST AGENDAS? Who is pushing these, why is it so hard to stop them – and should CEOs who damage the organisation’s reputation and/or finances be fired? (Paul says yes…)

* WHY DID BOARDS PANIC IN 2020? Were they too quick to make political statements and approve DEI targets, after the death of George Floyd? Paul remembers that period vividly…

* WHAT ROLE DID MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCIES PLAY IN STEERING COMPANIES IN THE WRONG DIRECTION ON DEI? Paul admits no-one read the small print of the McKinsey reports which claimed demographic diversity leads to better business outcomes 

* HAVE BIG FIRMS BEEN DOING POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION ‘BY STEALTH’ AT SENIOR LEVELS, even though it is unlawful in the UK? Have specialist diversity headhunters like Green Park and Involve solved any problems – or just made a fortune creating new ones for us all, including the suspicion that some senior leaders are ‘DEI hires’ when in fact they were appointed on merit?

* HOW WILL COMPANIES BACKTRACK FROM HERE? And has Donald Trump changed everything? 

Enjoy the episode!

Have you noticed that many of the loudest voices in DEI are men’s – and some get really angry when they’re challenged by women? Same here! So let’s get into it.

The writer Gareth Roberts – himself a (lovely!) gay man; and the author of Gay Shame – agrees that something dark is happening, and women need to wise up. 

In this episode Gareth and Tanya explore the outsized influence of the high-profile men in DEI, and scrutinise the tactics they use to push their own supposedly ‘inclusive’ agenda – whether the rest of us like it or not.

We also highlight examples of some of their most shocking behaviour. 

And, yes, we name names. 

They’ve posted their thoughts publicly, so why not? Game on.

Tanya and Gareth discuss:

Buckle up, boys...

Enjoy the episode!

Gay Shame by Gareth Roberts is available on Amazon

Are neurodiversity, mental health and 'LGBT' winning the war for employers' attention - while disability has been sidelined? Has the 'lived experience' industry become superficial and exploitative? And have staff networks turned into unsupervised - and even dangerous - group therapy sessions in the workplace?

Disability rights campaigner George Fielding doesn't want to 'be kind' if it means endlessly affirming fragility – or pretending that groups who need additional support aren't competing for employers’ attention and resources.

And he says the era of 'no debate' is over. It's time to talk. People will have different ideas about priorities and paths to success on disability but ‘We’ll never make progress if we can’t be honest.’

In this groundbreaking episode of This Isn't Working, we ask:

* DO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES FEEL ABANDONED BY EMPLOYERS who seem to have prioritised issues such as neurodiversity, mental health, and ‘LGBT’ in discussions about DEI (AKA 'EDI' in the UK)? (Spoiler: Yes!)

* ARE ‘LIVED EXPERIENCE’ TRAINERS DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD? Where is the due diligence on the disability consultants who employers are inviting in – and is this expertise, or just oversharing? Do they understand the Equality Act? What unhealthy messages do they promote to impressionable audiences – and will the results only ever be superficial, as opposed to systemic?

* HOW DO DISABILITY, NEURODIVERSITY AND TRANS IDENTITIES INTERSECT IN THE WORKPLACE? Is it appropriate for employers to be hosting conversations which result from poor sex and relationship education and mental health support for those with additional needs? If staff networks have become co-rumination bubbles, activist groups or unsupervised group therapy sessions, should employers shut them down and move these discussions *out* of the workplace?

* IS IT UNWISE TO LET SUCH RAW LIVED EXPERIENCE SHAPE COMPANY POLICY? After a long wait, an ADHD diagnosis can feel like a ‘reward,’ says George. This can create a sense of ‘rebirth’ and feed an urge to seek justice for past failure or discrimination. Have you considered this, or taken these employees’ views at face value? 

* DOES LANGUAGE MATTER? Views will vary, but George isn’t fussed. (There are only three words he doesn’t like!) In fact, he thinks language policing is actually *holding back* debate. ‘If we’re still arguing over which words we use, we’re never going to have the discussions we need, to move things forward.’

* WHY ARE THERE STILL SO FEW PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN SENIOR LEADERSHIP ROLES?  George explains that employed disabled people often feel so *grateful* to be in work that they hesitate when it comes to pushing for a promotion, or risking finding a new employer. Have you considered this?

We share George’s view that this vital conversation has stalled – and employers have lost focus. Despite all the controversy around #DEI, it is hard to find anyone who doesn’t think people with disabilities should be prioritised, and #AccessToWork improved.

Is it time for employers to put the spotlight back on to disability?

In trying to make our workplaces ‘inclusive’ to people who identify as trans and non-binary, have employers excluded and alienated too many others? In some cases, it looks like we are actually causing distress to our colleagues, without even realising. 

If it’s bad for our teams, and it’s bad for business, is it time to look at 'trans inclusion' again?

Future episodes will cover the legal aspect of this topic (including why many lawyers are warning employers not to follow the CIPD’s ‘Trans and non-binary inclusion’ guides – especially the 2023 version. Reminder: religious and gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010).

But first, let’s step back and look at the people side of things. 

What was originally presented to employers as an extension of the gay rights movement has turned out to be something far more complex, sensitive, and political. You might even ask whether this discussion belongs with HR at all.

What is ‘trans’ really all about? A range of perspectives is available – and we won’t all agree.

What we are more likely to agree about is the presence of a lot of pain – and not just that of our colleagues who identify as trans or non-binary, whose stories we have heard much about in recent years.

It is time to hear the untold stories of the people closest to them – who are also working alongside us, whether we realise it or not?

While themes of joy and authenticity surround trans-led discussions, not every family has such a happy tale to tell.

It can't be right that employers are cherry-picking whose distress is seen, and whose is ignored.

In this episode, Stella O’Malley, director of Genspect, explains who in your workforce is currently suffering in silence. 

Perhaps they fear their colleagues’ reactions - or perhaps they feel this is simply too painful to discuss at work, where they come to think about other things. 

Are these groups likely to be performing at their best in your organisation? Consider: 

* Parents of distressed children or teens who identify as trans or non-binary, who don’t believe medical transition is the right path for their child

Do you know if these groups are in your workforce? Have you insisted they attend gender diversity training where contested ideas were presented as fact? How will they feel about your plans for Pride this summer, if the activities include uncritical affirmation of a medicalised approach to trans? And is your organisation appealing to talent from these groups, when seeking a new role?

This is a big opportunity for HR professionals to show we are able to recalibrate, when new information becomes available.

Is it time to put our heads together, and find better ways to make sure everyone feels welcome and able to do their best work within our organisations? 

What would a genuinely inclusive approach look like - and how should employers move forward from here?

Enjoy the episode...

Genspect https://genspect.org/

DID HR CRASH JAGUAR? Has advertising lost touch with consumers – and what role have its 'people professionals' played? If a strongly left-leaning, middle class monoculture has evolved, is the industry in any position to preach about diversity? Doesn't anyone care about selling stuff anymore – and is it too late to turn this around?

In this episode Tanya takes a deep dive into what isn’t working in the UK’s advertising industry, in conversation with the fabulously frank copywriting legend Stever Harrison.

Why be so specific about one industry? Because – although there are universal themes, such as group think and a lack of moral courage – it’s become clear that every industry faces its own problems, when it comes to talent, leadership and culture. 

Who is attracted that industry? How has it evolved? What makes it vulnerable to bad ideas – and what explains its failure to address problems which are glaringly obvious to outsiders?

Tanya's path crossed with Steve’s, so we thought we'd start with advertising. In this rich, varied and often-funny conversation, you’ll hear them ask:

HOW HAVE UNIVERSITY GRADUATES CHANGED THE INDUSTRY? Do they want to make great adverts – or do they want to save the world? If young people think capitalism is bad (or at least a bit naff), what do they think advertising *is*? Has the industry mis-sold itself to a generation of young talent?

IS THE AD INDUSTRY ‘WOKE-WASHING’ ITSELF? While championing on-screen race and gender diversity (think Jaguar and Bud Light), Steve says Adland has failed to address its own biases and monoculture – and is now staffed almost exclusively by a ‘middle class, left-leaning, metropolitan elite.’ 

IF ‘SOCIAL PURPOSE’ ADVERTISING WAS AN EVDIENCE-FREE FAD, WHY DID EVERYONE GO ALONG WITH IT FOR YEARS? This is a shocker. For over a decade, marketing giant Edelman pushed flimsy data claiming Gen Z cared more about progressive politics than product or price, Steve says. When FMCG giants Proctor & Gamble and Unilever lapped it up, every ad agency followed, as it suited their personal politics. Ads that sold nothing won awards, and the industry press was silent. Had these organisations had healthy, mixed cultures which encouraged challenge, would the business case for social purpose ads have been rejected much sooner? How much money was wasted by clients and agencies during this period, because their culture discouraged internal debate, and incentivised nodding along? 

DID THESE BAD IDEAS BLEED INTO EMPLOYER BRANDING? Did employer branding agencies like Havas People and Thirty Three borrow Edelman’s iffy ideas about Gen Z’s priorities, and push brands towards positioning themselves as being ethical, socially responsible graduate employers – even if they weren’t particularly? (Does this explain the disillusionment many 20something staff are expressing now?)

WHY HAVEN’T WE SEEN MORE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS? The fear factor is huge in advertising, says Steve, who likens challenging Adland’s holding companies to ‘playing poker against the richest gamblers at the table. And, even if you win, you’ll never work again…’

WHAT HAPPENED TO LEADERSHIP? Ad agency execs are well paid, and not stupid. But Steve says they are preoccupied with social status, and their relationship and clients has felt increasingly coercive as budgets have been redirected towards digital agencies delivering cheaper, quicker results. With these dynamics at play, will leaders admit their part in creating the industry’s current problems? Or will they just push on, hiring the same people and repeating the same mistakes that continue to leave the rest of us baffled about what has gone so wrong?

Huge thanks to Steve for being such interesting and entertaining company.

Enjoy the episode!

What happens when you ask whether Human Resources has lost the plot in places – including around DEI? Pamela Dow – Chief Operating Officer at think tank Civic Future – found out the hard way, as author of that New Statesman article on HR, and chair of that government report on DEI.

In this episode, Pamela explains why she’s more convinced than ever that ‘something is definitely going on’ with HR – and why that motivates her to keep asking important questions, especially when they are taboo. We discuss:

* WHY DID THE HR INDUSTRY FIND HER CRITIQUE SO… TRIGGERING? Does she stand by the New Statesman article? Does she regret not speaking to CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel Development) CEO Peter Cheese before she submitted it? And is she ‘right-wing’?

* WHO IS DRAWN TO A CAREER IN HR? Does the industry represent itself appropriately to new talent – or are we setting unhelpful expectations which cause trouble in the future? 

* WHAT IS THE CIPD ACTUALLY DOING? A blend of trade union, membership association and lobby group is ‘a difficult balance to tread,’ Pamela says. Is the CIPD’s identity crisis partly to blame for the confusion and ‘mission creep’ which HR’s critics now say it suffers from?

In the second half this episode, we turn to ‘what isn’t working’ in the Civil Service, asking:

* IS THERE A PIPELINE PROBLEM? Who is attracted to a career in the Civil Service – and have mistakes been made with employer branding? For example, should recruitment teams have pushed back on ‘whizzy Soho marketing agencies’ who prioritised promoting the Civil Service Fast Stream as a chance to change the world – rather than becoming dutiful public servant to the government of the day?

* WHY ARE CIVIL SERVANTS BEHAVING LIKE ACTIVISTS – WHEN THEY’RE MEANT TO BE INDEPENDENT? Why has DEI become so big in the Civil Service? Was Baroness Claire Fox right to express alarm at the ‘group think’ she’s witnessed around race and gender identity in her recent speech in the House of Lords? And does the Civil Service have a particular problem with staff who express gender critical views?

* WHY ARE CIVIL SERVANTS SUCH BRAZEN JOB-HOPPERS? Pamela explains the incentives that drive people to move from department to department – and we discuss the dangers of being deficient in deep expertise, but pretending you know it all...

Enjoy the episode!

Watch on YouTube https://bit.ly/4aL6Diy

#hr #dei #humanresources #woke

We knew Donald Trump hated ‘DEI nonsense’ – but did we expect him to torch it on Day 1 of his new term in the White House? And what does this mean for those of us working in or around this troubled industry?

In this episode, Tanya and (sensible!) DEI (or 'EDI' in the UK) consultant Heeral Gudka (founder of Convergent) discuss the immediate impact of a momentous week for DEI – and what the US ‘vibe shift’ might mean for the UK long-term. Included in their analysis:

* DOES THIS PROVE THAT DEI WAS POLITICAL, ALL ALONG? It’s not normal for a whole industry to be so vulnerable to the arrival of a new US President. If Trump torching DEI suggests this work had become too aligned with the Democrats in the US, what are the lessons for DEI in the UK? 

* WHO IS THE MOST DISTRESSED? Tanya voices particular concern for DEI advocates who identify as trans or non-binary. Always a vulnerable group, they have built their career around creating norms that help them to feel accepted on their own terms. Now the new administration – and American voters – seem to have rejected the concept of gender identity (prioritising biological sex instead), how will they cope with this new reality? Will they continue to urge employers to campaign for the world they want – or concede that it is not appropriate for most to do this?

* IS IT TOO LATE TO SAVE DEI? Tanya and Heeral’s LinkedIn feeds show numerous shocked DEI professionals who seem not to have been paying attention. Meanwhile, others are calmly proposing a more moderate, conciliatory, evidence-driven approach, to course-correct and save DEI. Does this suggest they knew all along that they had over-reached? Are they only pitching a reset now the tide has turned? 

* WHAT ARE UK HR DIRECTORS SAYING? We hear from two – with slightly different takes about the significance of what’s happening Stateside, and how (and when) it’s likely to impact UK employers – both in the private and public sector…

* DOES DATA AND DISCUSSION OFFER A PATH BACK TO COMMON SENSE? One HR director says it’s time to accept Alex Edmans' evidence that we were duped by the ‘McKinsey Myth’ (that demographic diversity leads to improved financial performance – when it doesn’t) and look again at how recruit and retain the best people, and maximise productivity. They say HR professionals would be smart to jump at Simon Fanshawe's advice to encourage disagreement, and Tanya’s invitation to crack open long-overdue discussions about where we’ve lost our way, and how to navigate our return to a more sensible approach...

* ARE HR AND DEI PEOPLE SHARING THEIR OWN VIEWS TOO FREELY ON SOCIAL MEDIA? Do they realise they are creating risk for their employer (or clients) by showing they have clear political biases? Heeral – who specialises in resolving workplace conflicts around belief discrimination – warns that expressing strong opinions can backfire if grievance investigations turn sour, as social media posts can be used to show the investigator was not impartial. In particular, Heeral predicts a rise in conflicts around gender critical beliefs – as too many HR teams still fail to understand the significance of Maya Forstater's landmark case in 2023, which showed that such views are legally protected in the UK...

Enjoy the episode!

Watch on YouTube https://bit.ly/3WDfHjU