Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Gimme A Pound

KikiLaRue wrote: »

No company should be obliged to continue employing someone they feel represents them publicly in a negative light.

The issue here though is: did she represent them in a negative light? She didn't even mention them. The fact she works for them - well "These views are my own and do not represent those of my employer." Plus, what's negative about what she said? Nothing. People will pretend or assume she was saying terrible hateful things about transgender people, but of course she wasn't at all.

It won't make people transphobes just to acknowledge a view like that of this woman.

Candamir

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's "everybody's business"? To the extent that the poster was worried about a referendum being called?

No, just an example of how it’s not just the business of trans persons, when their wish to exert what they perceive should be their rights, infringe on other people’s rights.
That’s why I think it’s important that an open discussion is allowed and encouraged and not shut down as we see here, and in many other instances (Martins Navratilova is another recent example).
I’d be fearful that the acceptance that trans people have gained will be harmed more than helped by this demonising anyone with an opinion anything other than that a trans woman is biologically the same as a cis gender woman

Gimme A Pound

Zorya wrote: »

This is not what is at issue.

Your argument falls under Straw Man fallacy by making the problem seem to be about something else - trivial - that is not at all the problem.

It falls under the False Dichotomy argument by over-simplifying the issues, making out there are only a limited number of things at stake or a limited number of ways of looking at those issues.

It falls under the Red Herring fallacy because it diverts the argument to things that are not the issue.

It even falls under the Appeal to Pity fallacy by making out that people are either stupid or monstrous if they question this gender ideology in any way.

Mr Parrot and to a lesser extent yourself also use the Bandwagon Fallacy as if all the other fallacies are not enough.

The issue is not about Bob being called Shirley. You know this.

Spot on.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zorya wrote: »

It is discrimination against someone's right to have a political opinion that is backed by science regarding the ''material reality'' of sex.

Open to correction on this, but I don't think you can call discrimination on the basis of holding an opinion - you have to BE something rather than think something.

KikiLaRue

Breanna Slimy Variable wrote: »

The issue here though is: did she represent them in a negative light? She didn't even mention them. The fact she works for them - well "These views are my own and do not represent those of my employer." Plus, what's negative about what she said? Nothing. People will pretend or assume she was saying terrible hateful things about transgender people, but of course she wasn't at all.

It won't make people transphobes just to acknowledge a view like that of this woman.

Most companies have a Mission Statement, a Vision and a Values statement. A company like this almost definitely would, and D&I would be front and centre. You get them in your induction pack on your first day usually

If she is expressing views that go against all of these, they have a right to protect their reputation by ending their contract with her.

Candamir

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Most companies have a Mission Statement, a Vision and a Values statement. A company like this almost definitely would, and D&I would be front and centre. You get them in your induction pack on your first day usually

If she is expressing views that go against all of these, they have a right to protect their reputation by ending their contract with her.

Which of her views from the linked article do you think got her into trouble on the D&I front?

Zorya

KikiLaRue wrote: »

That's not a right companies are required to uphold; companies are obligated to protect their reputation.

What about journalists? Medical personnel? Policy makers? Educators? What if they speak out against non-scientific policy?

What about the right to be a conscientious objector?

Well, as we already see they are resigning in droves, being deplatformed, being refused speaking space at campuses, and so on. You can speak of companies ''rights'' as if they are the final arbiters of truth - but just because they claim ''rights'' that trumps the individual conscience does not make it sane, sensible or desirable. I'm sure people have long argued in totalitarian systems that the policies were implemented by those who had the ''right'' to do so.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Candamir wrote: »

No, just an example of how it’s not just the business of trans persons, when their wish to exert what they perceive should be their rights, infringe on other people’s rights.
That’s why I think it’s important that an open discussion is allowed and encouraged and not shut down as we see here, and in many other instances (Martins Navratilova is another recent example).
I’d be fearful that the acceptance that trans people have gained will be harmed more than helped by this demonising anyone with an opinion anything other than that a trans woman is biologically the same as a cis gender woman

The original point was that it's none of anyone else's business if someone want's to transition; or as the poster put it, "if Bob wants to become Shirley".

What they do after trasnsitoning is a different scenario. (In any case, I thought they had limits on the amount of testosterone a body could have in order to be classes female - even down to conducting drug tests? Not sure though - don't follow athletics)

How Soon Is Now

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's "everybody's business"? To the extent that the poster was worried about a referendum being called?

I'm not worried about it. All I'm saying is I wouldnt be surprised if at some point down the line we would have to vote on some kinda trans issues.

I mean who would of taught years and years ago we be voting on gay marriage.

It's everyone's business when the issues at hand are being integrated into wider society or expected of people.

Candamir

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The original point was that it's none of anyone else's business if someone want's to transition; or as the poster put it, "if Bob wants to become Shirley".

What they do after trasnsitoning is a different scenario. (In any case, I thought they had limits on the amount of testosterone a body could have in order to be classes female - even down to conducting drug tests? Not sure though - don't follow athletics)

Isn’t that the crux of it though?
I don’t see anyone arguing here that people shouldn’t be allowed transition, or that we shouldn’t respect a persons right to affirm a different gender identity.
I didn’t see any of those opinions in the article either.
What is everyone’s business is how we protect the rights of everyone in so far as we can. When trans women insist that they are no different to biological women, there’s going to be points where rights clash, as in the case of women’s sports. Some transgender women argue that they should be allowed to compete without any medical transition, and that is the case that’s currently allowed in some US states.
It’s a discussion that should be had without fear of losing your job or being bullied.

KikiLaRue

Candamir wrote: »

Which of her views from the linked article do you think got her into trouble on the D&I front?

I don't know; I've only seen her article, I haven't looked for the company's statement and don't know if there is one yet.

But I work with a lot of global companies that really value D&I and I think they would take similar steps.

This is why you get told all the time to be careful what you post on social media in case your employer sees it.

Candamir

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I don't know; I've only seen her article, I haven't looked for the company's statement and don't know if there is one yet.

But I work with a lot of global companies that really value D&I and I think they would take similar steps.

This is why you get told all the time to be careful what you post on social media in case your employer sees it.

But what points that she made do you think could be considered discriminatory? I’m really struggling to see where she went so wrong.

BorneTobyWilde

World is too PC, It seems people in positions of influence have lost their freedom of free speech. If you are in anyway in the public light you have lost your right to free speech, as if you use it there will be consequences, and that can't be right.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I'm not worried about it. All I'm saying is I wouldnt be surprised if at some point down the line we would have to vote on some kinda trans issues.

I mean who would of taught years and years ago we be voting on gay marriage.

It's everyone's business when the issues at hand are being integrated into wider society or expected of people.

Candamir wrote: »

Isn’t that the crux of it though?
I don’t see anyone arguing here that people shouldn’t be allowed transition, or that we shouldn’t respect a persons right to affirm a different gender identity.
I didn’t see any of those opinions in the article either.
What is everyone’s business is how we protect the rights of everyone in so far as we can. When trans women insist that they are no different to biological women, there’s going to be points where rights clash, as in the case of women’s sports. Some transgender women argue that they should be allowed to compete without any medical transition, and that is the case that’s currently allowed in some US states.
It’s a discussion that should be had without fear of losing your job or being bullied.

Same answer to both of you: no it's NOT your business.

You're both confusing the act with the possible consequences.

The act - If someone wants to transition they do not need a referendum, State permission or to explain the reasons they wish to transition. End of story.

The consequence - what they wish to do with their lives afterwards - get married, compete in sport, etc, - might be. That's what it might become an issue, but not before.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote:

That would be discrimination and it is enshrined in law.

It's discrimination to adhere to the Kindergarten Cop act of 1991 where even then, a young child knew the difference between a boy and a girl?

Joeytheparrot wrote:

All the anti LGBT bandwagonning going on around here lately and you come out with this.

Nope. None of that happening. Seems to be a lot of people sick of this type of bull****. Not the same as being anti LGBT. Also, you left out the other letters too you bigot. Thought you were better than that Joey. So exclusionist

Deleted User wrote:

So.... Intersex people are what? An inconvenience?

No, an anomaly. Unusual. Not regular. Not less human.

Candamir

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Same answer to both of you: no it's NOT your business.

You're both confusing the act with the possible consequences.

The act - If someone wants to transition they do not need a referendum, State permission or to explain the reasons they wish to transition. End of story.

The consequence - what they wish to do with their lives afterwards - get married, compete in sport, etc, - might be. That's what it might become an issue, but not before.

I’m not confused about anything! I agree with your first sentence. Fully on board there (with a caveat that children are a special case)

The second sentence - that exactly what I’m talking about. We’re in that phase right now, where people have transitioned, and there needs to be a discussion on what we should be doing.
That’s what the article was addressing too as far as I can see.

Annasopra

Augme wrote: »

Since when has policital opinion been covered under the equality act?

It is the UK. Not in Ireland

Baggly

Mod

Brendan delaney, improve the standard of your posting and treat other posters with respect, or don't post again. Thanks

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Candamir wrote: »

I’m not confused about anything! I agree with your first sentence. Fully on board there (with a caveat that children are a special case)

The second sentence - that exactly what I’m talking about. We’re in that phase right now, where people have transitioned, and there needs to be a discussion on what we should be doing.
That’s what the article was addressing too as far as I can see.

But that's my point: the initial poster was saying that it WAS his business if someone wanted to transition.

Zorya

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But that's my point: the initial poster was saying that it WAS his business if someone wanted to transition.

Which initial poster?

Gatling

This is utter nonsense ,

People losing their jobs because work places have become over sensitive to a tiny minorities feelings.

Can we please get back to some semblance of normality please.

It's not hate to say man = man and Woman =woman ,
If you want to be a cross between an alien and Unicorn don't feel the need to cry to the authorities if people say otherwise

How Soon Is Now

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But that's my point: the initial poster was saying that it WAS his business if someone wanted to transition.

Who mentioned transition?

Candamir

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But that's my point: the initial poster was saying that it WAS his business if someone wanted to transition.

I didn’t read it that way tbh, and if that was their view, well i disagree. It’s nobody's business if a person wants to transition, or express a non conformist gender identity and not transition. It’s nobodys business but their own.

The OP was about a woman who was sacked for expressing a view about transgender people and society, and as far as I can see, calling for an open discussion about rights etc etc

You seem to agree that this is a valid discussion to have. Unfortunately your voice, and voices like yours, and mine, and being drowned out by the no platformers out there, and there seems to be a huge number of people who seem to be going along for the ride - inclusion=good, anyone who may express concerns about how the rights of the many could be affected=bad.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zorya wrote: »

Which initial poster?

How Soon Is Now - see below

Deleted User wrote: »

I just never get why non trans people get so up in arms about it anyway.

It's literally none of your business. If Bob wants to be called Shirley and be referred to as her, why is that so hard to get? What difference would it make to your life? You've learned many things, how to walk, a language, drive etc. Far harder things than remembering Bob is now Shirley and would prefer you to call her, "her".

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

It's none of our business grand. Remember that boys and girls if the day ever comes and the country is asked to vote on any trans related issues.

(Apologies if I inferred I meant it was you as the thread starter - not the case!)

KikiLaRue

Candamir wrote: »

But what points that she made do you think could be considered discriminatory? I’m really struggling to see where she went so wrong.

Let me give you some context on this. A few months ago my boss in Canada asked me to come up with a fun group name for everyone who works in our Travel sector. There was no plan to use it externally, purely for internal use.

I suggested “Travel Tribe”.

My boss rejected this on the basis that some indigenous tribes don’t like the term tribe being used colloquially to describe groups that are not actual tribes.

I told her I thought it was PC gone mad (and most of the time I hate that phrase) and she said “yeah, but it only takes one person to complain”.

So I’m not saying I personally think she said anything wrong (it’s an issue I’m still formulating an opinion on) but big firms always err strongly on the side of caution.

Similarly, we were not allowed to wear pro-life or pro-choice badges, tops etc at work during the referendum.

Zorya

Having just set up her crowd funding project Maya raised more than £32,000 so far today of her £30,000 goal to fund her to go to the tribunal.

Candamir

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Let me give you some context on this. A few months ago my boss in Canada asked me to come up with a fun group name for everyone who works in our Travel sector. There was no plan to use it externally, purely for internal use.

I suggested “Travel Tribe”.

My boss rejected this on the basis that some indigenous tribes don’t like the term tribe being used colloquially to describe groups that are not actual tribes.

I told her I thought it was PC gone mad (and most of the time I hate that phrase) and she said “yeah, but it only takes one person to complain”.

So I’m not saying I personally think she said anything wrong (it’s an issue I’m still formulating an opinion on) but big firms always err strongly on the side of caution.

Similarly, we were not allowed to wear pro-life or pro-choice badges, tops etc at work during the referendum.

Did you get sacked for your ‘travel tribe’ suggestion?



So it’s the case that we can’t have a discussion in public, airing views that the vast majority of people don’t find offensive or discriminatory, (and are clearly meant that way), on a subject that clearly puts the rights of different groups on a collision course, because there’s a chance that a small minority of a small group might take unintended offence?

Even though the consequence of this non discussion is that many many people, particularly women and girls will find themselves discriminated against, put at a disadvantage, and perhaps in danger?

Is that really ok?

KikiLaRue

Candamir wrote: »

Did you get sacked for your ‘travel tribe’ suggestion?

No, but if I had gone on to Medium and wrote a long post about how it was PC gone mad, followed by a bunch of tweets about it, I expect I'd have faced some disciplinary action.

Candamir wrote: »

So it’s the case that we can’t have a discussion in public, airing views that the vast majority of people don’t find offensive or discriminatory, (and are clearly meant that way), on a subject that clearly puts the rights of different groups on a collision course, because there’s a chance that a small minority of a small group might take unintended offence?

You can be an activist or you can be a high profile business person. It's very difficult to be both without landing yourself in trouble.

Candamir wrote: »

Even though the consequence of this non discussion is that many many people, particularly women and girls will find themselves discriminated against, put at a disadvantage, and perhaps in danger?

Is that really ok?

I don't see how women and girls end up discriminated against? Aside from in Sport, which is a separate but related issue.

Here's how it works at my office: On each floor there are men's bathrooms, women's bathrooms and a disabled bathroom/ all gender bathroom.

Our shower room on the ground floor for people who cycle in is not segregated. There are four regular cubicles and one disabled one. Men and women share it, and it's absolutely no problem.

BattleCorp

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I told her I thought it was PC gone mad (and most of the time I hate that phrase) and she said “yeah, but it only takes one person to complain”.

I miss the days when big companies told people who complain to fcuk off.

How Soon Is Now

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How Soon Is Now - see below





(Apologies if I inferred I meant it was you as the thread starter - not the case!)

If someone wants to be called something there not and causes up roar when a person doesn't address them by there title of choosing then yes it is our business because it includes everyone. Potentially anyone could be involved in this.

When you make a choice to change something about yourself and keep it to yourself then it's no one else's business but there not doing that!

If you force others to see things your way and only your way it's not just your business anymore as your bringing others into it.