Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Candamir

KikiLaRue wrote: »

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.

Not the same scenario really.

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

Girls in schools in the UK are made share changing rooms with male bodied classmates. If they feel uncomfortable doing this, they are excluded.

Trans women are housed in female sections of women’s prisons, and women have been sexually assaulted by them.

Girls are made to share rooms with male bodied gymnasts when on tour for competition.

See Zorya’s post for other examples.

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.

That sounds ideal. Trans persons have objected to using disabled /all gender bathrooms because they are not disabled. I’m glad that your co workers seem to be quite sensible here.

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

It’s happening in neighbouring countries - such as the country the subject of this thread happened in - so it’s not irrelevant to the discussion.

The topic is related to employment law and companies employment policies in the UK, it's not even related to sex based protections there(nevermind here)

Candamir wrote: »

There’s no reasons why some of these things can’t or won’t happen here, or affect us. Should we not discuss it and just bury our heads in the sand?

Different laws in different countries, it has not happened here yet?? We're waiting decades later as transgender people existed here for a very long time.

The workings of the Equal status act in Ireland has been ignored by the anti-trans brigade here and instead there has been a promotion of hysteric fear projected into ordinary people's minds about the transgender community. Some of the posters who are importing that fear from overseas should work for the Daily Mail, it's their natural home.

Pero_Bueno

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Agh we just finished with the last gender thread!!!

I honestly don't see how bloody hard it is to use pronouns without making a ****ing political point.

That said, someone's viewpoints should not be used for employment proceedings unless a) they advocate violence or extreme hate-speech, or b) they bring them into the workplace environment and start using it as soapbox.

The issue is being FORCED to use these pronouns, which is what you lefty lunatics are trying to force...

klaaaz

Deleted User wrote: »

As said before, that is utter bollocks. If I sew a cat tail to my arse, I'm not a cat.

Perhaps a tigress? :P

Deleted User wrote:

Bollocks. Nobody said that. Womens body's are designed to have babies. Yes, some can't. Still doesn't mean they are less of a woman, their body just doesn't function correctly. A lad that isn't fertile isn't a woman, he is a man that just can't father kids.

Saying someone born with a penis is a woman because he elected to get it removed is absolutely absurd and insulting to women.

Blessed be the fruit! Praise be!

KikiLaRue

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

The issue is being FORCED to use these pronouns, which is what you lefty lunatics are trying to force...

Who is trying to force you to do anything?

What are you on about?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

The issue is being FORCED to use these pronouns, which is what you lefty lunatics are trying to force...

Society is already forcing you to use pronouns.

KikiLaRue

KikiLaRue wrote:

Who is trying to force you to do anything?

If you don't accept the transition of male to female or vice versa, you can be fired. That's what people are going on about.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

If you don't accept the transition of male to female or vice versa, you can be fired. That's what people are going on about.

I honestly wouldn't fire someone for refusing to use the wrong pronouns. I'd be tempted to fire them for being a jerk to another employee though (and no, I wouldn't consider it trasnphobia). How hard can it be to call someone what they want to be called, be it Bob or Robert or Roberta?

(Mental note: next time I'm interviewing, ask people how they'd react in this situation hypothetically before making a decision. May solve a lot of hassle down the line...)

ceadaoin.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I honestly wouldn't fire someone for refusing to use the wrong pronouns. I'd be tempted to fire them for being a jerk to another employee though (and no, I wouldn't consider it trasnphobia). How hard can it be to call someone what they want to be called, be it Bob or Robert or Roberta?

(Mental note: next time I'm interviewing, ask people how they'd react in this situation hypothetically before making a decision. May solve a lot of hassle down the line...)

I agree that refusing to use the requested pronouns for a colleague is dickish behaviour. That's nothing like what this woman did though. All she did was talk about women's sex based rights and how they need to be protected and not overruled by "gender identity"

p1akuw47h5r3it

klaaaz wrote: »

Conservatives have deep pockets.

Everyone who isn't far left like you is a conservative in your eyes.

klaaaz wrote: »

A medically transitioned trans woman is an adult human female, they have changed sex. Most companies have policies in place for people who change sex and if you disagree with their policies, you're free not to join that company.

No no no no no. They have changed gender. Not sex. You are a science-denier.

klaaaz wrote: »

Medically transitioned trans women have already had access to these places for decades which are covered by the Equal Status act(Equality act in UK fyi) . You know this and hide it but you keep starting threads about transgender people based on hysterics.

eagle eye

klaaaz wrote:

Some women cannot get pregnant, it's shocking that you think that they are like men just because they are not a baby factory.

I didn't say they were like men, I said they are not the same as women.
There are many parts of a woman's body that they don't have.

ceadaoin.

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't say they were like men, I said they are not the same as women.
There are many parts of a woman's body that they don't have.

I wouldn't bother. You'll just get something like "so you're saying women who have had hysterectomies/mastectomies etc aren't really women, how terrible of you" in response, when everyone knows that is nonsense and not what you're saying

The medical community knows the difference between male and female regardless of how they identify. It's why they don't waste their time checking a trans man's prostate or performing a smear test on a trans woman.

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

A medically transitioned trans woman is an adult human female, they have changed sex. Most companies have policies in place for people who change sex and if you disagree with their policies, you're free not to join that company.

Really, they’re not. They are a Transwoman, not a biological woman. If Michael Jackson bleached his skin, would that have made him Caucasian?

Medically transitioned trans women.....

And how about trans women who have not medically (or surgically) transitioned? Do you also consider these adult females? How does an adult male become an adult female? What are the requirements in your opinion. Do they have to take some medical or surgical steps, or do they just have to think it? Serious question, I’m interested in your opinion.

klaaaz wrote: »

Perhaps a tigress? :P


Blessed be the fruit! Praise be!

Why the funny face? It seems to be a logical follow on from your thought process!

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I wouldn't, but if I was your boss and worked at a company that had made a public commitment to LGBT rights, I would probably encourage you not to air those views in a public forum.

You would encourage people to deny a biological reality for fear of being sacked? That doesn’t sound right to me.
We can champion LGBT rights without denying biology.

hatrickpatrick

Discrimination on the grounds of political views and political speech should be 100% illegal, period. All political views and political or ideological speech should be considered "protected speech" and something which it is absolutely, non-negotiably and without exception, forbidden to penalise an individual for in the workplace.

Augme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Discrimination on the grounds of political views and political speech should be 100% illegal, period. All political views and political or ideological speech should be considered "protected speech" and something which it is absolutely, non-negotiably and without exception, forbidden to penalise an individual for in the workplace.

Why?

hatrickpatrick

Augme wrote: »

Why?

Because democratic freedom, and therefore democracy itself, is absolutely and totally meaningless if people can be punished or persecuted for holding the "wrong" views, or for airing those views.

Indeed, democracy itself is meaningless if the very concept of "right" or "wrong" beliefs is a "thing". In a democracy, there's no such thing as a "wrong" opinion, only a popular opinion or an unpopular one. If we tolerate being being punished because they hold an unpopular one, then we're essentially saying that we don't believe in democracy at all.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because democratic freedom, and therefore democracy itself, is absolutely and totally meaningless if people can be punished or persecuted for holding the "wrong" views, or for airing those views.

Indeed, democracy itself is meaningless if the very concept of "right" or "wrong" beliefs is a "thing". In a democracy, there's no such thing as a "wrong" opinion, only a popular opinion or an unpopular one. If we tolerate being being punished because they hold an unpopular one, then we're essentially saying that we don't believe in democracy at all.

How about if said expressions bring the employer or company into disrepute or causes loss of business?

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How about if said expressions bring the employer or company into disrepute or causes loss of business?

The rights of individuals should trump the rights of businesses.

hatrickpatrick

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How about if said expressions bring the employer or company into disrepute or causes loss of business?

That's why it should be illegal to discriminate on this basis, because boycotting or shaming a company for the views held by one of its employees when the company is legally prohibited from taking action on those views or against that employee, would make no sense. What would it achieve? Why would anyone bother?

In such a scenario, demanding that a company "do something" about a "problematic" employee would be demanding that the company actively commit a criminal offence. Some nutcases would still make such demands but the culture of demanding retaliation for speech would die off fairly quickly.

What exactly would you need me to do in order for you to believe that I am a woman (despite being born a man and having a penis)?

If I say so, should I wholesale be believed? What is the criteria exactly?

strandroad

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's why it should be illegal to discriminate on this basis, because boycotting or shaming a company for the views held by one of its employees when the company is legally prohibited from taking action on those views or against that employee, would make no sense. What would it achieve? Why would anyone bother?

Wouldn't you boycott them simply in order to avoid coming in contact with such employees?

If an employee makes their unfavourable or hostile views on gays/Irish/women/GAA players/etc known, you'd be a masochist to frequent the place if you're their target yourself. And a poor friend if they target your mates or family members.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DanDan6592 wrote: »

The rights of individuals should trump the rights of businesses.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's why it should be illegal to discriminate on this basis, because boycotting or shaming a company for the views held by one of its employees when the company is legally prohibited from taking action on those views or against that employee, would make no sense. What would it achieve? Why would anyone bother?

In such a scenario, demanding that a company "do something" about a "problematic" employee would be demanding that the company actively commit a criminal offence. Some nutcases would still make such demands but the culture of demanding retaliation for speech would die off fairly quickly.

OK - so what are you suggesting the business do in this situation where they are losing business due to this employee and risking going out of business?

I take your point about the business-shaming, but people can still opt to take their business elsewhere. I'm not saying for one second that this is a logical move, but protesters - y'know - frequently not that logical.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

OK - so what are you suggesting the business do in this situation where they are losing business due to this employee and risking going out of business?

I take your point about the business-shaming, but people can still opt to take their business elsewhere. I'm not saying for one second that this is a logical move, but protesters - y'know - frequently not that logical.

They can say that they do not agree with the views of the employee.

eagle eye

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

How about if said expressions bring the employer or company into disrepute or causes loss of business?

The reason the world is where it's at now is because people were allowed to air their opinions in public.
It seems the liberals are now becoming the ones that are telling people to shut up if you don't agree with them. What's next, stoning to death if you don't share their opinions?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

eagle eye wrote: »

The reason the world cup s where it's at now is because people were allowed to air their opinions in public.
It seems the liberals are now becoming the ones that are telling people to shut up if you don't agree with them. What's next, stoning to death if you don't share their opinions?

I'm not against it - I'm just trying to flesh out the consequences!

In any case, I don;t think it's discrimination we're talking about here. It's more a case of unfair or unreasonable dismissal. Discrimination would occur before hiring, dismissal afterwards. The difference being the former is a lot harder to prove.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DanDan6592 wrote: »

They can say that they do not agree with the views of the employee.

I'm not asking what you think will happen, I'm asking how you think the employer should react if they start going under.

Augme

DanDan6592 wrote: »

The rights of individuals should trump the rights of businesses.

So companies/people shouldn't be given the democratic freedom to employ who they want?

hatrickpatrick

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm not asking what you think will happen, I'm asking how you think the employer should react if they start going under.

Issue a statement denying association with the individual's views or comments. The newspaper paradigm of "op-eds and opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of this publication or its editors" should be applied by all businesses. If people still try to force a business under even in the knowledge that the business would be committing a crime by punishing a worker for something they said outside work, in my opinion that's just one of the prices we have to pay for living in a free society. It's by far the lesser of two evils.

What's happening to the woman mentioned in the OP is chilling, sickening, and downright frightening.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Augme wrote: »

So companies/people shouldn't be given the democratic freedom to employ who they want?

I don’t think the word democratic means what you think it does.

And in fact they can’t employ or not employ who they want, there are laws on discrimination.

hatrickpatrick

Augme wrote: »

So companies/people shouldn't be given the democratic freedom to employ who they want?

They're already not given that freedom. They are not allowed to discriminate based on demographic or religious grounds, for example. Extending this principle to political beliefs and off-the-clock speech would be extremely straightforward.