It is thus an understatement to say that I have learned so much through this experience in the Caucus, but thinking back to when I started this project believing that I was pretty knowledgeable in EDI and specifically gender-related issues, I want to share three lessons I have learned and have now become foundational to my work and ethos:

Obviously it is! However, the way menstrual health (and the menopause) is framed with relation to work is how it affects workplace experiences, or performance, or absenteeism. Although some menstrual health related conditions are debilitating and painful, most of the time simply menstruating is made problematic by inaccessible workplaces. By looking at menstrual health through the social model of disability, we learn to shift the responsibility from the individual to the working environment which helps us identify underlying issues of inclusion and accessibility. I often come across work initiatives aimed at raising awareness around menstrual health and supporting employees going through the menopause, and most of the time they focus on “educating” women how to manage symptoms, by for example exercising, eating a more balanced diet, and practising mindfulness. Usually this piece of advice is paired with guidelines on how to “harness your cycle” and make the best use of your hormonal changes (e.g., schedule your meetings or brainstorming sessions when you are ovulating, and avoid social interactions before your period is due). This approach, although probably very well-intended, generalises people’s experiences and does not address the systemic barriers present in most workplace settings.

Moreover, these initiatives are exclusively tailored to people who experience menstrual health themselves, leaving male colleagues and managers out of the conversation, thus reinforcing the belief that menstrual health is a “women’s issue” and should be discussed “in private”. Instead of “fixing” menstruating bodies, the whole workforce should reflect on how worksettings can change to be more accessible, not just in a physical sense but also through inclusive policies and work practices. By doing so, everybody is encouraged to create a workplace that is inclusive and where everybody has the opportunity to thrive – which takes me to my next valuable lesson…

As I have already mentioned, it is often assumed that conversations around menstrual health only concern women and, by the same logic, any interventions to support menstrual health in the workplace will benefit only women or those who menstruate – but this assumption could not be more inaccurate. In my experience with our test-sites, providing a platform to discuss menstrual health openly and safely encouraged people – regardless of their gender, menstruation status and job role – to talk about health more broadly and reflect on how different health conditions could be accommodated at work. For example, I learned that some of the side effects of prostate cancer treatment can be similar to the symptoms of the menopause and, because these issues are seldom discussed at work unless in a “gendered” way, there is hardly an opportunity for colleagues to relate to each other’s experiences.

Moreover, most of the interventions suggested in workshops and surveys are useful and necessary to all the workforce, such as promoting flexible and hybrid working patterns, providing a quiet room that could be used by anybody who needs some space and rest (e.g., because of period pain, or when experiencing hyperstimulation, or to cool down after a challenging meeting), or simply making sure to avoid back to back meetings to allow people to use the toilet. These are just a few examples to illustrate that addressing EDI related issues invites people to connect and empathise with each other, and most of all to imagine a better workplace for all. 

Certainly one of the most rewarding experiences of my time in EDICa has been the co-design work with the test-sites, stakeholders and all the people who have been involved throughout the project. Co-designing goes beyond collaboration: it is a process where everybody is involved and has a say on something that will then affect them. In this case it promoted a bottom-up approach, where people exchanged their knowledge and experience, and were actively invited to shape menstrual health related policies and interventions supported by EDICa’s evidence-bases. We adopted co-design throughout, meaning that even the way we engaged with different communities was not imposed but adapted to different needs.

For example, some people, especially from commonly marginalised groups, did not always feel comfortable participating in the workshops and openly sharing ideas – we cannot ignore workplace hierarchies and power dynamics, especially when discussing a sensitive topic such as menstrual health. To include them in the discussion, we provided alternative means of engagement including interactive online platforms (e.g., Miro Board) to which people could contribute anonymously. By being adaptive and flexible, we ensured inclusion of diverse voices. The co-design approach encouraged people to take ownership and be proactive in the decision-making process.

This led to more meaningful and thus effective interventions, because they reflected the needs of the people whom they are meant to serve. Some might argue that employing co-design is not efficient, as it takes time and resources. This argument is often made for EDI work more broadly, and it is unfortunately too often used as an excuse not to make EDI a priority. It is absolutely true that there are no shortcuts to quality EDI work, and change does not happen overnight. But it is crucial to recognise the value of addressing EDI issues in the workplace as an investment for the success of the organisation and business itself.