Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Options
1…6791112…40

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


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

    They can employ who they want. They can't fire who they want based on that persons political opinion.


  • Options
    #243
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    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.

    And I gave you my answer!


  • Options
    #244
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Augme wrote: »
    Since when has policital opinion been covered under the equality act?

    It should be, within reason.

    In fact socialists and unions fought for decades for that right, how else could they organise as socialists within capitalist organisations otherwise?


  • Options
    #245
    Augme
    Registered Users Posts: 5,205 ✭✭✭Augme


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    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.


    They can employ who they want once they are not discriminating. The idea that en employer has to keep a member of staff they don't want seems a bit foolish unless you want companies to fail.


  • Options
    #246
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Augme wrote: »
    They can employ who they want once they are discriminating.

    Yes...and?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Augme wrote: »
    They can employ who they want once they are not discriminating. The idea that en employer has to keep a member of staff they don't want seems a bit foolish unless you want companies to fail.

    And thus it begins... If I don't ant an employee because they are gay/a traveller/married etc. should this be allowed?


  • Options
    #248
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,076 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    And I gave you my answer!

    I'm assuming they've done this and they're still losing business what then?
    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    They can employ who they want. They can't fire who they want based on that persons political opinion.

    But surely if they refuse to employ in the first place based on political views, it's the same thing?

    What you're going to get here is more rigorous background checks and clauses in contracts banning the employee from speaking out or saying certain things, which brings us back to same point: restrictions on freedom and expression of speech.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #249
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Zorya wrote: »

    Otherwise, the police were having family friendly fun in Swansea...
    D5ywx6RW4AIU3AM.jpg

    I know things are getting bad out there but seriously ? Just when you think the bar can't go any lower.


  • Options
    #250
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    I'm assuming they've done this and they're still losing business what then?

    Wait till the controversy dies down. The rights of the individual trump the rights of the business. It's highly highly unlikely that a business will go out of business because of the views of an employee. And if it does, tough.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    But surely if they refuse to employ based on political views, it's the same thing?

    Yes. How do you prove however that you weren't hired based on your political views though?

    Edit: I just saw your edit. It wouldn't as the law would make those clauses null and void.


  • Options
    #251
    Augme
    Registered Users Posts: 5,205 ✭✭✭Augme


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    And thus it begins... If I don't ant an employee because they are gay/a traveller/married etc. should this be allowed?


    No, unless they can prove that employing a gay person for example is risking their business.

    If a gay/traveller/married person does something to jeperdise there company/reputation then they should have the option of not having to keep employing them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Augme wrote: »
    No, unless they can prove that employing a gay person for example is risking their business.

    If a gay/traveller/married person does something to jeperdise there company/reputation then they should have the option of not having to keep employing them.

    Yes, unless that thing is stating an opinion in their own free time.


  • Options
    #253
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    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.

    The reason they don't check a trans man's prostate is because they know they don't have one. Not because they "know" (think) he is not a man.

    They wouldn't check the prostate of a cis man who had his removed either.


  • Options
    #254
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LLMMLL wrote:
    The reason they don't check a trans man's prostate is because they know they don't have one. Not because they "know" (think) he is not a man.

    No. It's because they know she doesn't have one because she isn't a man.


  • Options
    #255
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Deleted User wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote:
    The reason they don't check a trans man's prostate is because they know they don't have one. Not because they "know" (think) he is not a man.

    No. It's because they know she doesn't have one because she isn't a man.

    He is a man.


  • Options
    #256
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LLMMLL wrote:
    He is a man.

    No. Sheer will, psychology, surgery or hormone treatment will never make a woman a man.

    What is your criteria for me, a man with a penis, to be classified as a woman?


  • Options
    #257
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    The reason they don't check a trans man's prostate is because they know they don't have one. Not because they "know" (think) he is not a man.

    They wouldn't check the prostate of a cis man who had his removed either.

    How about they don’t check his prostrate because they know he doesn’t have one because while he identifies as a man, and is legally recognised as a man, he isn’t a biological male?


  • Options
    #258
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    He is a man.

    Only in her head!!


  • Options
    #259
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Deleted User wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote:
    He is a man.

    No. Sheer will, psychology, surgery or hormone treatment will never make a woman a man.

    What is your criteria for me, a man with a penis, to be classified as a woman?

    Do you identify as a woman?


  • Options
    #260
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Christina Cold Babel wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    He is a man.

    Only in her head!!

    His head


  • Options
    #261
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Candamir wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    The reason they don't check a trans man's prostate is because they know they don't have one. Not because they "know" (think) he is not a man.

    They wouldn't check the prostate of a cis man who had his removed either.

    How about they don’t check his prostrate because they know he doesn’t have one because while he identifies as a man, and is legally recognised as a man, he isn’t a biological male?

    How about what?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Do you identify as a woman?

    does this logic only extend to gender? if so, why this arbitrary limitation?


  • Options
    #263
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    How about what?

    How about the reason I gave? Does it make sense to you?
    Sorry if I was being cryptic, I thought it was a fairly straight forward question.


  • Options
    #264
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LLMMLL wrote:
    Do you identify as a woman?

    If I did, would that be enough for you to allow me to join a woman's only gym or to go somewhere only women are permitted?


  • Options
    #265
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Do you identify as a woman?

    does this logic only extend to gender? if so, why this arbitrary limitation?

    Do you have any examples as to other areas this "logic" might extend to?


  • Options
    #266
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Do you have any examples as to other areas this "logic" might extend to?
    you name it.

    trans racial for example.


  • Options
    #267
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Deleted User wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote:
    Do you identify as a woman?

    If I did, would that be enough for you to allow me to join a woman's only gym or to go somewhere only women are permitted?

    Do you?


  • Options
    #268
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    Deleted User wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote:
    Do you identify as a woman?

    If I did, would that be enough for you to allow me to join a woman's only gym or to go somewhere only women are permitted?

    Do you?


  • Options
    #269
    LLMMLL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,588 ✭✭✭LLMMLL


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Do you have any examples as to other areas this "logic" might extend to?
    you name it.

    trans racial for example.

    How many people identify as other races?


  • Options
    #270
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LLMMLL wrote:
    Do you?

    Sure. I do. Do you think it's acceptable for me to change in a communal women's changing room at the local pool or gym?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Candamir
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Candamir


    LLMMLL wrote: »
    Do you?

    Do you agree with my statement regarding transmen.

    Doctors don’t check his prostate because they know he doesn’t have one because while he identifies as a man, and is legally recognised as a man, he isn’t a biological male?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement