How safe are "safe spaces"?

In this episode of D&I Digest, we talk about the idea of "safe spaces," including what makes a genuinely safe space, and where they work well (or don't!)

You can read the two articles we discuss here:
Bank Manager Was Unfairly Sacked After Using the N-word During a Racism Training Session
Creating a Safe Space for Difficult Conversations

Our D&I Spotlight this month is Eileen Babbitt, who is mentioned in the second article.

If you have a question for us, you can submit it through this form and might even hear us answer in a future episode!

Music used is:
Who Do You Think I Think You Are? by Mini Vandals

Transcript

H: Welcome back to another episode of D&I Digest! I’m Henry, I use he/they pronouns 

T: And I’m Teagan, I use she/her pronouns. We make up the Diversity and Inclusion team at Anchor, which is an organisation that specialises in housing and care for over 55s.  

 H: This month we’re talking about the safety of safe spaces, which I think is going to be a really interesting one since it’s something we kind of engage with on an almost daily basis! 

T: Yeah 

H: So, to just kind of kick off conversation, I suppose, what does ‘safe space’ mean to you? Like when you hear it in everyday conversation? 

T: I guess for me, it’s a space where I can be truly honest without fear of maybe reprimand, or upsetting somebody, almost, and feeling like I don’t have to put on a show. And feeling just like what I do say will be taken in the context in which I mean it and it’s not going to be misconstrued in any way. So yeah, that’d be a safe space for me. 

H: Yeah, I think that’s pretty similar for me actually as well, like that kind of, yeah, safety to be me. And to be taken as me and for that to be a comfortable situation for all involved I suppose, yeah. 

T: Yeah, absolutely. And there’s this conversation particularly at the moment in the D&I space around psychological safety as well, isn’t there? Versus that sort of physiological? Is that maybe the right-? 

H: Physical, as well, I guess? 

T: Physical, yeah, safe spaces as well, so yeah, that psychological safety element comes up a lot in a work space because, well work spaces are often asking peoplle to give feedback that they can act on, especially when they’re talking about wellbeing initiatives, or inclusion initiatives. And you’re not going to volunteer that information unless you feel like it’s a psychologically safe space, I guess. 

H: Yeah, totally, and the same with the whole kind of idea of bringing your best selves to work, or whole selves to work, whatever phrase is used, but you’re not going to do that if you think you’re going to get judged for how you’re doing it, so yeah, that kind of psychological assurance that it’s okay. 

T: Mhmm. 

MUSIC 

H: Our first article which is, ‘Bank manager was unfairly sacked after using the N-word during racism training session’. 

T: This article was a very interesting read! 

H: A wild ride! 

T: I remember sending this one to you and saying “We have to cover this on the podcast! What a wild ride this one is!” 

H: It’s going to be great, so buckle up! In the article, it says that as part of their ‘Race Action Plan’, Lloyds Bank provided an online training on anti-racism run by an external organisation. The trainer established some ground rules for the session, reportedly telling attendees to not “worry about saying the wrong thing” and that it was an “opportunity to practice, learn and be clumsy... and the goal is to start talking” so they said to “speak freely, forgive yourself and others when being clumsy today.” So that’s a pretty – pretty normal set up, right? 

T: I think, yeah, I’d agree. Yeah, especially in a training session. 

H: Would you, like if you were in a training session, would you do anything differently, or? 

T: No, I don’t think I would. When we do training sessions, we always go into it by saying “this is a safe space,” we’ve even said things like “we’re not going to record our sessions any more” as well. 

H: Which is really important, I think, yeah. 

T: It is, because it stops people from being honest, and it stops people from asking questions. And I’d rather that those questions maybe come up in a training session than outside in any other sort of work setting. 

H: Totally, and I’d also rather that they were asked to us who have signed up to answer them, as opposed to like some randomer on the street who has not consented to that at all! 

T: Exactly. 

H: Okay, so yeah, so far, so normal. This is very common, very normal way to set up this kind of setting. So the problem arose when this manager asked a question about a situation where he’d heard someone from an ethnic minority background use a word that might be considered offensive if used by a white person, in this case, it was the N word, and he said it in full. So when he said this, the trainer took offence, told him off, and said that if he spoke again he’d be thrown off the course. 

T: Okay. 

H: Okay, updates from this far forward? 

T: Ah, yeah, um, really weird way to approach it I think from the trainer’s point of view? Do we know if the trainer was from an ethnic minority? 

H: Um, I don’t think that the article actually says explicitly but I am assuming so? 

T: Okay. Because I wonder if it would elicit a different reaction. Well. I think it would. 

H: I think it would. 

T: It definitely would, wouldn’t it? I mean I’m coming from my own personal perspective here, because if someone threw the N-word at me, I would not be very happy about it, no. And that’s something I’ve had to navigate my entire life. So I think they’re maybe missing a bit of stuff out here in terms of telling us whether the trainer was actually from an ethnic minority background, because I would imagine that their reaction probably came from a place of feeling quite uncomfortable that that had happened. So I’m not saying that their reaction was right or wrong, I’m just saying that I understand it. 

H: Yeah, it’s explainable. The reason that I’m kind of assuming yes is because of the Race Action Plan, because I know a lot of their training sessions are run by people who it affects kind of daily. 

T: Okay. 

H: Do you think it matters whether the- 

T: No. 

H: Whether- yeah, okay! 

T: To answer the, to finish off the question that you were going to ask me is no I don’t think it would have mattered whether the person was from an ethnic minority background or not. In that I think the situation as it is would be the same. 

H: Okay, yeah. 

T: Because this manager that’s saying it isn’t directing it at the trainer. This is not this person actively perpetrating racism towards the trainer, they’re just saying this deeply derogatory word in this training session so no I don’t think it would have mattered who the trainer was really. I think what’s really important with this article is that idea of that safe space, which is obviously why we’re talking about it. 

H: Yeah, and the reaction from it, yeah. Okay, so after this initial kind of discussion, the training providers complained to Lloyds Bank, and after an internal investigation, the manager was found guilty of gross misconduct and his employment was terminated, saying that while he hadn’t intended to cause any hurt, like we’d said, he should have known better than “to use the full word in a professional environment.” The reason that this has been repealed and has actually resulted in a nearly £500,000 compensation payment is essentially because the manager has dyslexia, and took the "opportunity to learn and be clumsy,”’ as the trainer suggested and invited, he took that literally, and his dyslexia, they claim, was a “strong factor” in why he used “the full word rather than finding a means to avoid it.” So we’ve got an interesting additional level of disability discrimination, I guess, with that as well, which complicates things.  

T: The intersections here are very apparent, aren’t they? And I guess this is where this idea of the empathy gap comes in? 

H: Oh, I’ve not heard of this before. Do enlighten me! 

T: Okay. Well, it was specifically talking about people who are autistic and people who are allistic – allistic is anyone who’s not autistic – and it was talking about the empathy gap, and there’s like a list of things that maybe the neurodivergent person would do, so the autistic person saying “I don’t understand the way that allistic people communicate,” “I have better communication with people who are also autistic,” “people don’t think I’m friendly,” all this stuff. And then the allistic person was saying “I don’t like the way that autistic people are so blunt,” “I find it really hard to maintain eye contact with them,” and what it really was was just a display of empathy between two- the two conflicting points of interest, I guess. And it just really shows that in situations like this you get it as well when it’s across different characteristics. Like this person who’s running the training session has probably not been aware of the fact that he’s got someone in the room who’s dyslexic. I mean, I would probably say that this is maybe why you should try to understand your delegates before they go into a training session, but that’s another podcast episode entirely! And because of that, this trainer’s then potentially not been able to meet this delegate’s needs appropriately, so there’s an empathy gap there. And there’s an empathy gap with the person who’s got dyslexia because it’s societally accepted that even when you are maybe in a training space, you still don’t use the full version of the N-word. But you’re not going to understand that if you’re someone who takes things very literally because that is the way your brain’s wired up. 

H: Yeah totally. And if it’s already been established: you can be clumsy in this. 

T: Right? 

H: It might not have even been a conscious decision to say it? Because, you know, there’s a certain amount of censorship that goes on in your brain, right? So if the invitation’s been there to be clumsy, make mistakes, that’s okay, that guard might be slightly down anyway and, yeah, like you say, just a miscommunication I suppose, but yeah. 

T: Really interesting one. Half a million pounds worth of compensation?! I don’t think I’ve ever seen one that big. 

H: Really? 

T: Yeah, I don’t think I have. This is another thing with discrimination cases is it’s uncapped. So this award’s pretty massive, but I don’t think it’ll probably be the biggest that’s ever been given. But yeah. Half a mill. 

H: Wild. I’m going to repeat the question from last time again: do you think it would necessarily matter if the person had dyselxia or not? Do you think that kind of layer of disability or neurodiversity has an impact on what was said in this situation? Because obviously it has an impact on the compensation side of stuff, but morally, communicatively? 

T: I would say yes. I think I’m coming from a place of lived experience with this. I don’t have dyslexia but I am autistic and I do take things quite literally. There are jokes that are often made in the room that fly straight over my head, I often feel like I’m the only one in the room who’s not laughing at something that everyone else finds hilarious and I’m not quite sure where the joke is. So for me, if someone said “We’re going to have this training session, I want you to be as open and honest as you want to be, ask the silly questions, I’m here to answer anything you need, you can be clumsy, that’s okay.” I’d be like “Great, I’ll do just that then.” And I think, well, from my perspective, that is exactly what this person has done – the person who’s said the N-word, the delegate in the training session. And can he really be held to accountfor that? When you’ve told someone that that is the right space to make those mistakes? 

H: Yeah, this is what I was kind of wondering. I mean, potentially I’m the, well we’re the wrong audience to flag this because we’re both autistic – maybe our perceptions are skewed somewhat – but I would argue that even from an allistic perspective, if someone invites you to make mistakes and be clumsy, and, you know, say things that perhaps you’re not too sure of but you want to be corrected, I would argue actually maybe the dyslexia, the neurodiversity, isn’t even particularly relevant in this case because the invitation’s been there. 

T: Interesting, interesting. 

H: But again, this is coming from my perspective as if I didn’t know, then I’d want to be corrected in that, if it was ignorance. Because I mean we can hopefully infer, with benefit of the doubt, that this wasn’t maliciously intended, like you say, it wasn’t directed at the trainer, it was a report of someone saying something else. 

T: Yeah, and I think what’s also important in this particular set of circumstances as well is he was saying it because he has team members who are from ethnic minority backgrounds who use that word directly to each other, and his question was “I work with some people and they say the [__] to each other all the time” 

H: Yeah, it was reported speech, wasn’t it, it wasn’t- 

T: Yeah, it wasn’t him- 

H: Like coming out with it from nowhere and being like “This is the word I would use!” 

T: Yeah, it’s really odd, and I think honestly, the trainer’s made a boo boo here. I don’t think it was the best way to handle this situation. And I don’t think that the trainer was genuine in how they set up this safe space. You can’t tell someone it’s a safe space and then reprimand them when they say something that offends you. 

H: Yeah, and I think there’s a really important thing there because you can say “Actually that’s quite offensive.” You can absolutely say why it’s not appropriate, but to kind of – I mean I don’t know if this was the case so there’s an absolute assumption here, but to kind of blow up when something is said just makes everyone scared to make mistakes, which you need. 

T: Yeah, can you imagine what the rest of that training session was like? 

H: I hadn’t even considered that, yeah. It must have been quite tense! 

T: Yeah, very awkward and, like you say, clearly nobody else in that room was in a place to ask questions after that. I mean I certainly wouldn’t be, would you? 

H: No! And I think as well there was something that was mentioned to the manager saying like “If you say anything like that again, you’ll be asked to leave.” So if I was in that situation, I would just not say anything. Because I’ve been told it was safe and it clearly wasn’t. 

T: No, exactly. 

H: Yeah, so basically what this means for Lloyds Banks, then, other than huge payouts, is that they have to follow some recommendations regarding the tribunal and conduct, and provide a reference in future for the manager. They also have to tell the regulator that their dismissal of the manager was “substantially and procedurally unfair and an act of disability discrimination”. 

T: Ouch.  

H: Yeah, gutted. So yeah. That’s kind of where the article sums up, but it is a really interesting topic especially for us, I think, because we deliver this sort of training. 

T: Yeah, absolutely. 

H: Very regularly! And actually even one called ‘Safe Curiosity’ which, well I would hope, we establish as being a safe space! 

T: Yeah, fingers crossed, I hope we do! Absolutely, I think this really, perfectly, shines a light on when you say something’s a safe space, be genuine with it? It’s not a safe space until you decide it’s not. It’s either a safe space indefinitely, or it’s a space where you conform to certain societal norms and you don’t say things that are likely to cause offence, and you don’t go around saying whatever thought is in your head. There’s a difference. 

H: Yeah, and I think for me as well like, with the whole kind of neurodiversity angle on this article, I think the clarification is a huge one. And like the transparency that you’re coming at it with. Because, I don’t know, for example if I was – I’m trying to relate this to things that I would be offended by, and potentially be in the same situation as the trainer, I think you can still kind of say “Look this is a safe space, make mistakes, but be aware that they might make me upset. That’s not to say that you can’t make the mistake, but be aware that I’m having to distance myself from that.” Or I don’t know, “It’s a safe space, feel free to make mistakes, however, precede your language with a disclaimer” I don’t know, something like- 

T: I know what you mean. 

H: You can communicate the fact that it’s hard for you while ensuring that everybody else can make mistakes.  

T: That’s right. 

H: They can mess up. 

T: I want to say just finally on this article – if there is anyone wondering out there if it is appropriate in the workplace to call anyone the N-word, whether you’re from an ethnic minority background or not, the answer is no! Don’t use derogatory language in any capacity in the workplace, it is not appropriate. Do what you need to do outside of work, outside of a workspace if that’s how you talk to your friends, that’s between you, that’s on you. But it’s a professional working environment, and that type of language should never be permitted regardless of who it’s coming from, so I will just say that. 

H: We love some clarity in this podcast. 

MUSIC 

T: So, our next article is from November 2023, so again pretty recent, and it’s around ‘Creating a Safe Space for Difficult Conversations.’  

The article is about Eileen Babbitt, who teaches at Tufts University in Massachusetts, America, and specialises in international conflict management. She’s been using her expertise to facilitate discussions on campus about the Israel-Hamas war. She’s been moderating community conversations for Tufts students, faculty, and staff to encourage them to share how the Israel-Hamas war is affecting them personally, and hopes to “humanize the discussion” and create the possibility for developing empathy- There we go. 

H: There we go! 

T: Developing empathy toward people with whom you might disagree with. She’s very clear in saying that it won’t solve everything, but it certainly creates some openings for a better conversation, I would say. So thoughts on this approach around humanising the discussion of things that are very culturally sensitive at this time? 

H: I feel like it goes without saying a bit, but I think it’s a really good approach because a lot of what you hear, which again kind of goes back to why we started this podcast anyway was to make the news stories a bit more human? 

T: Yeah, yeah. 

H: And yeah I think it’s really, really valuable especially in a Western environment, it’s going to have that Western spin on things, and you always get it with news stories like this where it’s kind of like “Well it’s just the way that things happen,” and it’s like well no because people are people. There’s still going to be that element of empathy, humanity, all of those things that kind of come into it, so yeah I think it’s a really nice take. And personally I’m a big fan of kind of talking through these things anyway, and that kind of make things perhaps less jargony. 

T: Totally. 

H: Yeah, make it a bit more real for people. 

T: Yeah, totally agree. And what are your thoughts on developing empathy with whom you might disagree? I know that we’ve talked about this a lot, actually, but how do you- well, okay, two questions really. Firstly, how do you handle a situation where you’re talking to someone who you disagree with- 

H: With difficulty. 

T: And secondly, what do you think about developing empathy towards them? 

H: Okay, so, I’m going to come back to this a little bit later with one of our FAQs. 

T: Okay 

H: But I’ll do a brief answer here and kind of, you know, lead up to that. Spoilers. So I personally find it incredibly hard to talk to people with whom I disagree. Not necessarily in terms of like idle opinion? If someone likes a film and I don’t, that’s fine, I can associate that in my mind, we can get over that, it’s fine, we can still be friends. When it comes to moral stances, I find it incredibly hard, and I think there’s probably a big part of that that is the autism? But I find it very hard to put myself into someone else’s shoes and kind of go “Well I understand where you’re coming from” when it’s talking about like human rights. Because I don’t understand where someone’s coming from who’s not saying, you know, that people should live and be happy and be comfortable. 

T: Yep. 

H: So in the moment, I often react very badly, and acknowledge that, and do often have to kind of caveat what I say with “This is a gut reaction” or whatever it might be. But I do think that there is value with talking to people with whom I disagree. 

T: Yes. 

H: Like, otherwise I’m just going to go into a- 

T: Echo chamber. 

H: Echo chamber, that’s exactly it. And also to be honest it helps keep me humble because I can see that there are people who do think differently, very differently to me in some situations, and so it kind of reminds me that – I don’t know, where I am with the world? Which sounds very profound, but like it puts everything into perspective a little bit. Makes it feel a bit less chronically online, or that I’m only talking to people like me. And also sometimes justifies why I’m talking to people like me. 

T: Yes. Very tangential question, but it will make sense in a minute. Do you have an internal monologue? 

H: Absolutely I do. 

T: Okay, so it blew my mind to find out that some people don’t. 

H: Yes! I had the same thing, yeah. 

T: But, again, tangential. The reason I’m asking is because when I find myself in these situations, I tend to feel like I’ve got two Teagans going on at any one moment. I’ve got the Teagan that’s outward facing that’s, to my credit, handling the situation fairly well, and I do tend to navigate these kinds of conversations with a variety of different people pretty well, for the most part. And have often swayed an opinion and influenced people in these particular areas so. 

H: Well done! 

T: Happy with that. In my head, the Teagan in my head is on fire, like, screaming. She’s very upset, lots of expletives, doesn’t really understand where this person is coming from, and I think that is my own empathy gap in those situations, but I don’t let it show. And the reason I don’t let it show is because it’s then not conducive to a good conversation that I can have with that other person. And it’s taken a long time to get there, don’t get me wrong, but I think that when I now find myself in these types of situations, I just have to compartmentalise and say “Okay, this person’s never going to come around to your way of thinking if you don’t approach this with some level of compassion.” So I don’t think necessarily I approach it with empathy, I think that’s probably not the right phrasing for me, personally? I think to feel empathetic- you're the language whizz, what’s the difference between sympathy and empathy? 

H: So empathy is kind of understanding how somebody feels and being able to put yourself in their shoes. 

T: Thank you! That’s the bit I can’t do. 

H: Yeah, sympathy is kind of understanding where they’re coming from, understanding their feelings, but not feeling them yourself. 

T: Fine. So yes, I’m taking it in its most literal sense. I don’t feel empathy because I can’t put myself in their shoes- it's impossible, I can’t do it because I would never think the way that they’re thinking. If I put myself into previous situations where, for example, I’ve unfortunately found myself having arguments with people around Britain’s immigration laws. I can’t possibly put myself in the shoes of the other person and go “Yeah, yeah, this feels right,” because it never will to me. So I don’t think I’m ever approaching it with empathy, but I do approach it with compassion and a human element. Because I think once you lose that, that’s where you’re also losing the argument and the person’s stopped listening. 

H: Totally. And I saw something really nicely phrased the other day is that where you’re kind of approaching things like – it was talking particularly about things like the protected characteristics – but where you approach those arguments with the “well this is objectively wrong, you can’t think like that because it’s objectively wrong,” you then lose a lot of assurance with regard to other protected characteristics where potentially that factual element doesn’t exist. So the example that they gave was actually with regard to neurodiversity. In terms of you can understand why an autistic person might be being very blunt, but you can’t approach that with a “Well you’ve got to be nice because they don’t necessarily mean that” because actually they might. And if they do, then you’ve absolutely negated the worth of that autistic person because you’re kind of – you've added a caveat to your acceptance and your understanding. So I think that’s a really nice way of saying it, is that it’s not necessarily approached with empathy, but it is approached with compassion and kindness. Which sounds very cheesy, but I think it’s true. 

T: It’s true, isn’t it, it’s absolutely true. A few things that Babbitt has said about these conversations are that firstly a lot of information has to come through social media, meaning that people feel distant and that they can get off track pretty quickly, which- 

H: So true. 

T: Yeah, feels like a fair assessment, doesn’t it? 

H: Definitely. 

T: So she was really keen to do something face to face. And she said that globally people are losing an ability to tolerate differences. 

H: I think that is true. 

T: Never a truer word spoken. 

H: So true! 

T: And we’ve got to figure out how to create a space to tolerate those differences and still co-exist. Which is why she wanted to center this personal experience and talk about these types of feelings in this conversation. So, do you agree with that? 

H: A hundred percent. I think it’s so correct that social media’s kind of distanced people from things. I think there’s a huge angle where you can’t see someone’s face, so it’s an anonymous forum that you’re putting out these opinions, good, bad, ugly, whatever they might be, but there’s the real perception that they’re not impacting anybody because you don’t see that impact. Or when you do see that impact, it’s often the extremes, so it’s still something quite unrelatable, so yeah I do really like that kind of approach of well this is a talking session, so we’re doing it face to face. There’s no, like, pre-reading required, it’s all communication. Yeah, I really like that. 

T: Yeah, I’d agree with that as well, I think that people are becoming just growing more and more intolerant, and I do think it is hiding behind a screen that has made that so. I think people are far too comfortable saying things that are absolutely vile to strangers on the internet. And just this ability to then be able to hide behind that screen and almost be unidentifiable, has made it a lot easier for people to just share their views which is sometimes really really toxic and damaging and hateful. So I think when you do have the ability to get people together, face to face, to have this discussion and bring back that human element to the conversation, it makes a world of difference. And we see that all the time. 

H: Yeah, yeah, definitely. And I think there’s even that kind of element of body language that goes with it, because you can visibly see when someone starts to close up. 

T: Yes. 

H: So if your conversation starts going in a direction and one of your delegates is, you know, shrinking back from conversation, going quiet, that assurance that, you know, it’s not a technical fault, it’s not their chat’s not working, it’s not their mic gone dead. 

T: Yeah, so true. 

H: Actually you can- as a facilitator, it makes it so much easier to kind of step in and go “Right we’re going to steer this elsewhere now.” 

T: Yeah, for sure. 

H: Yeah, make that kind of whole situation a lot more inclusive and pleasant. 

T: Yeah. Absolutely. Babbitt speaks of the necessity of reading ground rules at the start of the session, which we always have – bit of housekeeping – and for everyone who’s taking part in the discussion to agree to them. This is to create a safe space and essentially create boundaries for the conversation. And the way that she makes them explicit and actually goes through them to explain and have people affirmatively commit to them is a really important part of that. She says that if someone goes astray or begins to be disrespectful, it gives her the authority to say “That’s not what we agreed.” and since they’ve agreed that she can moderate the conversation. I love that! 

H: Yeah, I think I’m going to steal some of this! 

T: Yeah! Babbitt’s got it all sorted out. 

H: Yeah! Cause yeah, I think that one thing that I do kind of struggle with, going back to your question about talking to people with whom I disagree, is having a script for the moment. 

T: Oh, okay. 

H: So I think especially when I’m the facilitator, it’s really helpful to have that kind of, yeah, I guess like stock phrase of “I’m just going to stop you because of our previous discussion about ground rules. We can come back to this in a healthier way later.” Having that stock phrase I think is really helpful because also it might empower other people at the table to use it as well. 

T: I agree. 

H: And I’m definitely stealing this! 

T: Yeah, yeah, I really like that. Yeah, I think I have committed to a few stock phrases that I do like to use in these conversations, and I’ve shared them with you before, haven’t I? And then you’ve been like “Yep. I’m stealing that.” Because they are important because it makes it easier to react in the way that you want to and not – sometimes it’s really hard to not lead with emotion, and I think having those stock phrases ready to go allows you to do that. And it actually gives you a bit of thinking time, as well, of what you’re going to say next. 

H: That’s exactly it. Because I think a lot of the time I shut down completely. 

T: Okay 

H: I panic response, go a bit rabbit mode, and just kind of let the thing fly? Which is deeply uncomfortable for me, but by the time I’ve worked out what I want to say, the conversation’s moved on, so I think that thinking time is super helpful. Because often, I think it was you that told me this phrase? It was “That’s a strange thing to say about another human.” Love it, because then they say “Why?” 

T: Yeah! 

H: And that’s a question I can respond to quite distantly? Because it’s no longer about me, it’s about a theoretical person, so it’s a really helpful thing to do because it’s about making conversations about like diversity fluent, isn’t it? Like that’s the end goal of all of this, so the more you practise it, the more phrases that you’ve got to come at things quickly, and in the moment, and non-confrontationally, that’s only going to be a good thing. 

T: Yeah. Absolutely. And we kind of touched on this a little bit earlier when we were giving our own personal experience of facilitating training sessions, but one thing I do like about this is that it also creates a safe space for the facilitator. So Eileen’s able to be like “Ah we’re going to stop here because this is not what we agreed to. We had these boundaries in place, let’s please stick to them, if we can’t then you’re more than welcome to end the session here. And I think that’s great because it’s not- like you say, it’s non-confrontational, you’ve already agreed to that as a delegate moving in, you should know what to expect, we’re going to have an open discussion that is respectful, so let’s do just that and that includes the facilitator, and I really like that. 

H: Yeah and it also gives that availability I guess to question things. Because it doesn’t say – and admittedly this is kind of just what we’re discussing in our little situation that we’ve construed, but – if the facilitator says “Okay we’re just going to stop that now,” it does actually kind of give a prompt to say “Did I say something wrong?” “What should I have said instead?” “Sorry!” Let’s not forget that one! 

T: Tried and tested! 

H: So it’s not a shut down of the conversation, it’s a re-steering and realignment of agreement? Which I think is, yeah, really good. 

T: Quite right. So she wanted to step in as a moderator in these conversations because she’s had years of experience in conflict resolution, and lots in public health too. She’s also worked very closely on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for about 30 years, so, you know, lots of experience there. She’s said that opening these conversations is what she can offer to counteract the violence happening in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. So she basically here is acknowledging that these conversations are always difficult. 

H: Yeah, and she’s had them in really tricky scenarios as well, like very high stakes situations so I imagine these ones - well, I’m not going to say that they’re a breeze for her, but! 

T: Yeah, they’re very different, aren’t they? 

H: Very different conversations, yeah.  

T: Maybe there’s less jeopardy involved for a start. 

H: Yeah. I do wonder if they’re easier or harder, though, because they’re more informal, I guess? 

T: Yeah, and maybe the boundaries are slightly different in that type of setting as well, like she’s a teacher, isn’t she? But I wonder if she’s ever been like a diplomat or anything like that? 

H: I think she has. I think in my – I went off on a bit of a sidetrack that was just frantically Googling Eileen Babbitt because I was like “She sounds like a great human!” 

T: She does sound very interesting. 

H: So yeah, as far as I understand, she’s come from like governmental authority. 

T: Okay, yeah yeah yeah. I imagine she’s had some very very tricky conversations then. 

MUSIC 

T: So, let’s move over to some FAQs! And the first one is: Are people who hold Gender Critical views welcome to express them respectfully? Diversity must include diverse opinions and viewpoints and I would welcome clarity on this. Big question! 

H: So this is where I said I was going to come back to! 

T: Ah, okay! 

H: When talking about people with whom I disagree.  

T: Okay. 

H: And just to kind of give a bit of context to this, because I think the context is a really important bit of this and it’s not necessarily the answer that’s the important bit, it’s the surrounding information- 

T: How we get there. 

H: Yes! So, Teagan and I have an anonymous inbox with diversity and inclusion related questions which is how these FAQs kind of come in to us from anybody, which is wonderful! We have set that up with the wording of, you know, ask any question, no question’s too silly, I can guarantee we’ve heard weirder! So we’ve tried to set that up as a really safe space. When this question came through, full disclosure, I went a bit ballistic with this. I was like “What?! Ah, this is.. Happening!” And went a bit emotive in my response, shall we say? Initially, I was like “I’m not answering that. Absolutely not, hate this. No, no, not at all.” And I think we kind of had that conversation, didn’t we, of like, “Yeah, well...” 

T: We talked around this solidly. 

H: And after a while kind of eventually came to the conclusion that “Actually wait no, I am going to answer this,” because now that anger response and that defensiveness has passed slightly, it’s not in the moment, we’re lucky enough to be able to have time to absorb this question, and think it through, and think up a better response than my initial “You can’t say that!” 

T: Yeah. 

H: And, again, actually, what’s the point in saying this is a safe space for you to ask questions- 

T: If it’s not. 

H: If we’re not going to answer them? 

T: What’s the point? 

H: It’s clearly not very safe. So yeah, I think the background to this one, my mental turmoil because I felt attacked by it. 

T: Yeah, it feels very personal, doesn’t it? For you. 

H: Yeah, and I think that kind of goes into what we were saying earlier about the safe space for the facilitator in these. But also that kind of time to say, “That is inappropriate, but here is why. You’re not a bad person for saying it, it was a bad thing that was said.” 

T: Yeah. 

H: So, that aside, the answer for this one, as to people holding Gender Critical views, are they welcome to express them respectfully. My personal take on this is that sure, people can hold any belief, but ultimately you need to show respect to the people around you. I think that’s kind of what it comes down to. So, Gender Critical views, just to kind of clarify this, are not views that are critical of gender.  

T: Yeah, it’s a very confusing statement, isn’t it? 

H: It is. And it’s used to mean essentially “When trans people or gender non-conforming people are presenting in a way that doesn’t equate to their gender assigned at birth, I’ve got problems with that and I don’t agree with it.” 

T: Yeah, so what you’re saying is it’s never a criticism on men and women. 

H: No, exactly, it’s a criticism towards trans people and gender non-conforming people. So, I think with that caveated and defined, in order to express views respectfully, that does involve avoiding conversations that are potentially hateful and harmful and, because there is no way of telling whether a trans person is in the room with you despite what many people think, you never know that that’s a certainty. So actually, you can’t really express those views respectfully because they are disrespectful to people. 

T: Yeah, I remember mulling over this for quite some time and how we were going to approach it, and I think you answered the question very well, I must say. And when we go out with the actual text on it, we answer it in our internal social, if you like, it’s called Workplace, and we make sure we post any responses there as well as giving you a bit of a flavour of what we’ve written in the podcast. But you’re right. People can hold any belief, we see this all the time particularly within religion, for example. You know, people can be Muslim and Christian and still live very harmoniously. 

H: Totally.  

T: Because they’re not trying to dissuade other peoples’ way of living. It’s just “I believe this, and you believe that, and that’s the end of it.” So if you are someone that has Gender Critical views, I don’t think any time soon that they’re going to probably go through a transition or start using they/them pronouns, and that’s their view, that’s their belief. Fine. But that’s where it has to stop. Because when we then start imposing these beliefs on other people, in order to cause them harm, because it is ultimately harmful if you say to a trans person “I don’t think that you should be trans.” You’re basically telling them that they shouldn’t exist, right? That is not an appropriate way to be interacting with anybody on the planet, ever. So yes, have beliefs, enjoy them, live and breathe them, absolutely fine. When it starts to become a direct conflict to other people living their life, that’s where we’ve crossed the line. 

H: Yeah, definitely because I think as well if someone voices those kind of things that are essentially saying like “I see you’re trans, but I don’t agree with it.” Which is often the phrasing that’s used that I’ve heard in like a physical, face to face conversation. 

T: Very scary. 

H: Yeah, it is scary. And well obviously it compromises the psychological safety of that, but it also very much compromises the physical safety too. 

T: Oh yeah, absolutely. 

H: Because suddenly I – well firstly I might be in a situation where the rest of the people around that person say “Oh yeah, me too” in which case, I am out of there.  

T: Yeah. Of course.  

H: But also, no matter what I say, I’m in the wrong. Because I’m then, well from the person’s perspective, challenging their right to have an opinion. 

T: Mm, and especially when it starts to be labelled as a belief as well, that’s where it starts to get particularly tricky. 

H: Yes, definitely. And yeah we’re seeing that kind of cropping up a few times now of like “My religious beliefs kind of conflict with this.” Or the phrase “the transgender beliefs” and I’m like “It’s not a belief.” 

T: It’s not a belief, it’s my reality. It’s a very very real part of who I am. So it’s not a belief.  

H: Yeah, exactly, and- 

T: It’s not abstract, I think is what I’m trying to say. 

H: Yeah, that’s exactly it. 

T: You know, I don’t want people to think I’m insinuating their beliefs aren’t real: they are of course real. What I'm trying to get across is that to be trans is not an abstract concept. You are trans. 

H: Yeah, definitely, and it’s not like a kind of “Well sure, I’ll take this elsewhere” because I thought I was in a safe space and that’s just been compromised, it’s not something that I can cultivate my surroundings to. It’s something that suddenly exists or doesn’t. So yeah. To link it back to like the question itself, was ‘Are people who hold Gender Critical views welcome to express them respectfully?’ No. I think is the answer, because, let’s call a spade a spade: Gender Critical views are transphobic and harmful. 

T: It’s the ‘respectfully’ part, isn’t it, that’s going to be the struggle. 

H: Yes. 

T: Express them, but you may be met with consequence. I think – didn't we say this back in podcast one? Episode one? 

H: Yeah, we’ve definitely covered it, haven’t we? 

T: Where we were like, “Do you know what? You can say and do what you like, but it doesn’t mean that you’re free from the consequence of doing that.” And sometimes the consequences aren’t even for you, they’re for the people around you and they can be so damaging and harmful. And we have to be mindful of that, we need to be considerate of that. So yeah, the ‘respectfully’ part – mm, maybe not. But yeah, express them. Just know that they will be met with consequence. 

H: Yes. And just to kind of final thought on this one, I guess, is that you don’t have to understand something to let someone else live? Like, and again this is something that often comes alongside these Gender Critical views is “But I would never do that! Why would you do that to your body?” And it’s like, well you don’t have to. 

T: Because it’s my body and not yours. 

H: Yeah, it’s my choice, it comes down to autonomy, and no one’s saying that you have to do this. Yeah, again it’s the ‘respectfully’ that I draw issue with in this question. You often see as well that these questions aren’t asked in good faith. And I think we’ve had this conversation before, haven’t we, of when you ask someone or express an opinion, don’t go into that with the expectation that they’ll agree with you. Like if they disagree, or experience something else, that’s not wrong. Just leave them to it? 

T: Yeah, absolutely. So we usually have a moment for a spotlight as well but I think our spotlight has to go to Eileen Babbitt that we’ve already mentioned, because she’s just doing such fantastic work in the space, and it’s very clear that from her experience, she’s really sort of leading the charge in trying to develop a bit of a blueprint if you like for what a safe space looks like so, keep going Eileen. Really great work. 

H: Come on, Eileen. I’m so sorry! 

T: Wow. There we go with the dad jokes! 

H: And with that! 

T: And on that note, let’s wrap up! 

MUSIC 

T: So thanks for joining us for this episode of D&I Digest, it’s been a really great conversation. I’ve really enjoyed exploring the concept of safe spaces, so I hope you have as well. 

H: And remember that you can follow us on our website and on social media, and we hope that you’ll come back in to listen next month. So, it’s bye from me. 

T: And bye from me. 

Both : Bye!