nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Zorya

Maya Forstater is a internationally renowned researcher on Tax Avoidance, who worked until recently at the London office of the Centre for Global Development (CGD) think tank.

In March she wrote an article calling for open debate about the consequences of Gender Self ID, particularly with respect to the implications for women. She says womanhood is defined by biological fact not by feeling.

This is the article.
https://medium.com/@MForstater/international-development-lets-talk-about-sex-eb9de927c787

She has been fired from her position on the grounds that she used ''offensive and exclusionary language'' and that she is ''fear-mongering''.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tax-expert-fired-for-saying-trans-women-aren-t-women-tpqgnm9vj

Forstater said: “I support transgender people’s human rights and I believe that trans people are vulnerable, but no one group should overrerule others. I lost my job for speaking up about women’s rights, in a careful way and in a tone of ordinary discussion and disagreement. I worked for a think tank and I thought you ought to be able to think and talk about things. I found out I was wrong about that.”

She is backed by Index on Censorship, whose director, Jodie Ginsberg, said: “From what I have read of her writing, I cannot see that Maya has done anything wrong other than express an opinion that many feminists share — that there should be a public and open debate about the distinction between sex and gender.”

In an email, a CGD manager said: “You stated that a man’s internal feeling that he is a woman has no basis in material reality. A lot of people would find that offensive and exclusionary.”

She is taking her employer to court to argue that ...

no one should be discriminated against for having gender critical views, and talking about them.

If we can establish that gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010, this would help protect others who are afraid of losing their jobs because of the beliefs they hold, and also those facing belief discrimination outside the employment field.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/fired-maya/

When people are so gleeful about certain opinions being censored on internet platfroms, remember that censorship can extend exponentially. Their opinions censored today, yours tomorrow. Their job today, yours tomorrow.

Biological facts are now a reason for censorship and job loss.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

klaaaz

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Who has done this? Certainly not the woman in question here

The poster said it's like walking on eggshells when in reference to an employment situation with a transgender person, when it is not. I replied "Be nice and respectful to people, and everyone gets along."

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

Be nice and respectful to people, and everyone gets along.

That’s a very reasonable approach to life, but nice and respectful works both ways Klaaaz.

It includes allowing people to have their say and air their opinions, even if you don’t fully agree with them.

It doesn’t include accusing someone of being transphobic on the basis of their scientifically backed beliefs

And it doesn’t include insinuating that such a person has anger management issues and needs therapy.

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

That’s a very reasonable approach to life, but nice and respectful works both ways Klaaaz.

It includes allowing people to have their say and air their opinions, even if you don’t fully agree with them.

It doesn’t include accusing someone of being transphobic on the basis of their scientifically backed beliefs

And it doesn’t include insinuating that such a person has anger management issues and needs therapy.

Why would someone bring up a discussion of their beliefs(of any persuasion) in a workplace? That stuff should be left at the door when an employed person enters the workplace, it has nothing to do with their day to day work that they are being paid to do. Plus it would probably be a breach of employment contract.

suicide_circus

once it was agreed that trans women are in fact 100% women, they became fully entitled to access all female spaces without question. it was essentially a social nicety (like "your baby is so cute!" or "no your bum dosnt look big in those pants") with consequences that should have been spotted a mile away but weren't

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Regarding proof - again, you know the law as well as I do.

You said "tough". But then you ignored the idea that the business owner might be an individual - what then? One individual's right versus another individual's right? The only distinction being employee and employer? Why should the employee have his rights to free speech taken away from him? What if he fundamentally disagrees with the employee and that the relationship has broken down to the point that he can he feels he can no longer work with them?

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you to an extent: what views you have and how you express them off the clock should be yours and yours alone - but my point is that it's simply not possible to give ultimate freedom of speech to every individual.

Ok I'll rephrase then. The rights of the employee should trump the rights of the employer on this particular issue.

BattleCorp

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I understand that you don’t see anything said in it as offensive. I understand why other people might find it very offensive. I’m undecided.

I'm getting very fed up with the word offensive.

p1akuw47h5r3it

klaaaz wrote: »

Why would someone bring up a discussion of their beliefs(of any persuasion) in a workplace? That stuff should be left at the door when an employed person enters the workplace, it has nothing to do with their day to day work that they are being paid to do. Plus it would probably be a breach of employment contract.

Sometimes conversations naturally drift to such topics. I was having a conversation about football the other day and we ended up talking about the prevalence of racism in society. A potentially sticky subject.

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

The poster said it's like walking on eggshells when in reference to an employment situation with a transgender person, when it is not. I replied "Be nice and respectful to people, and everyone gets along."

Oh ok, I wasn't sure what you were referring to. I didn't see any mention that someone would be uncontrollably angry about having to work with a transgender person though? That's not really what "walking on eggshells" means.

And I agree that you should be nice and respectful in the workplace, that's a given. If someone was rude and abusive towards a colleague simply because they are trans then that would actually be transphobia and possibly harrassment. Thats not really what we're talking about here though is it?

klaaaz

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Sometimes conversations naturally drift to such topics. I was having a conversation about football the other day and we ended up talking about the prevalence of racism in society. A potentially sticky subject.

Talking about football is not the same as talking about a personal attribute of your colleague.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Oh ok, I wasn't sure what you were referring to. I didn't see any mention that someone would be uncontrollably angry about having to work with a transgender person though? That's not really what "walking on eggshells" means.

And I agree that you should be nice and respectful in the workplace, that's a given. If someone was rude and abusive towards a colleague simply because they are trans then that would actually be transphobia and possibly harrassment. Thats not really what we're talking about here though is it?

That's what "walking on eggshells" was meant, they have uncontrollable internal anger and upset at their transgender colleague for merely existing. Yes, that would be transphobic.

Candamir

I know of someone who was disciplined at work when she called over to a group (mixed sex, mainly women) of her colleagues to start a meeting with the words ‘ok guys....’, which would be a fairly normal phrase in that workplace.
One of the team was transgender and made a complaint.

I think that’s what meant by ‘walking on eggshells’

That's what "walking on eggshells" was meant, they have uncontrollable internal anger and upset at their transgender colleague for merely existing. Yes, that would be transphobic.

“With all the political correctness backlash, it nearly seems that employing any trans is a serious minefield in any companys culture and everyone would need to walk on eggshells to avoid some form of incident.”

Enlighten me Klaaaz, how do you get from the above statement that the poster has ‘uncontrollable internal anger and upset at their transgender colleague for merely existing‘

p1akuw47h5r3it

klaaaz wrote: »

Talking about football is not the same as talking about a personal attribute of your colleague.

That's what "walking on eggshells" was meant, they have uncontrollable internal anger and upset at their transgender colleague for merely existing. Yes, that would be transphobic.

You said this:

Why would someone bring up a discussion of their beliefs(of any persuasion) in a workplace?

You never mentioned anything about talking about a personal attribute of a colleague.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Candamir wrote: »

I know of someone who was disciplined at work when she called over to a group (mixed sex, mainly women) of her colleagues to start a meeting with the words ‘ok guys....’, which would be a fairly normal phrase in that workplace.
One of the team was transgender and made a complaint.

I think that’s what meant by ‘walking on eggshells’

“With all the political correctness backlash, it nearly seems that employing any trans is a serious minefield in any companys culture and everyone would need to walk on eggshells to avoid some form of incident.”

Enlighten me Klaaaz, how do you get from the above statement that the poster has ‘uncontrollable internal anger and upset at their transgender colleague for merely existing‘

What you'll notice with the likes of Klaaz and LLMMLL is that they will invent things in their own head, taking a relatively innocuous post and turning into something outreagous or attributing all kinds of meaning to it that was never intended.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Ok I'll rephrase then. The rights of the employee should trump the rights of the employer on this particular issue.

Therin lies the problem - you are taking freedom of speech away from an individual on the context that individual freedom of speech is sacrosanct.

Of course, no matter what way you phrase it or implement it, that's what's happening - which is why your idea is unjust, unworkable and discriminatory.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Therin lies the problem - you are taking freedom of speech away from an individual on the context that individual freedom of speech is sacrosanct.

Of course, no matter what way you phrase it or implement it, that's what's happening - which is why your idea is unjust, unworkable and discriminatory.

It's not. The balance of rights leans towards the employee. It is perfectly workable. It's just a shifying of the balance.

The flip side is what we have now. Were the balance of rights leans towards the employer.

BattleCorp

klaaaz wrote: »

Why would someone bring up a discussion of their beliefs(of any persuasion) in a workplace? That stuff should be left at the door when an employed person enters the workplace, it has nothing to do with their day to day work that they are being paid to do. Plus it would probably be a breach of employment contract.

Ah here.

What sort of world do you live in because I certainly don't want to live there.

Often our workplace conversations could start up being about ham sandwiches and end up being about the Pope, religion, race etc. That's the nature of conversations, they jump around. It's a sad state of affairs if you have to tip toe around in case you have a view that everyone else doesn't agree with.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be allowed to talk about those types of topics in work? That'd be a very unfair contract if it prevented you from mentioning any of your beliefs in conversation with a work colleague - beliefs such as believing in God or saying "The priest gave a nice speech at that Tom's funeral" etc. Please note I'm not saying beliefs such as kill xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (insert whatever race tickles your fancy). I'm saying beliefs that won't get you in trouble with the Gardaí.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DanDan6592 wrote: »

It's not. The balance of rights leans towards the employee. It is perfectly workable. It's just a shifying of the balance.

The flip side is what we have now. Were the balance of rights leans towards the employer.

There IS no balance. It's not possible. Someone loses their freedom of speech no matter how you try this. THAT'S why it''s unworkable.

You cant say "balance" and "leans towards" in the same sentence and have it make sense - it's either balanced or it's not! And without balance you are discriminating against someone. The fact that you chose a side doesn't make it balanced!

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

There IS no balance. It's not possible. Someone loses their freedom of speech no matter how you try this. THAT'S why it''s unworkable.

You cant say "balance" and "leans towards" in the same sentence and have it make sense - it's either balanced or it's not! And without balance you are discriminating against someone. The fact that you chose a side doesn't make it balanced!

Ok I will put it this way.

Let's say 2 people have a controversial opinion. One is a sole trader and one is an employee of a sole trader.

If that sole trader airs that controversial opinion, they cannot be fired for airing said opinion as they are their own boss.

If an employee airs that controversial opinion, they can lose their job.

Legislating so one could not lose their job for airing an opinion would prevent this scenario. Thus no-one would lose their job.

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

I know of someone who was disciplined at work when she called over to a group (mixed sex, mainly women) of her colleagues to start a meeting with the words ‘ok guys....’, which would be a fairly normal phrase in that workplace.
One of the team was transgender and made a complaint.

I think that’s what meant by ‘walking on eggshells’

“With all the political correctness backlash, it nearly seems that employing any trans is a serious minefield in any companys culture and everyone would need to walk on eggshells to avoid some form of incident.”

Enlighten me Klaaaz, how do you get from the above statement that the poster has ‘uncontrollable internal anger and upset at their transgender colleague for merely existing‘

It depends on the situation, as some posters here have internal anger issues at transgender people. Once they're employed, they are obliged to leave that irrational fear of transgender people outside the door of the workplace or else they breach their employment contract and/or code of ethics/code of conduct that the company adhere's to. Is it worth it to being prejudiced in the workplace? Just be nice and respectable to each work colleague.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

You said this:

You never mentioned anything about talking about a personal attribute of a colleague.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between a personal attribute of a work colleague to non-personal stuff like football. You cannot just go around offending work colleagues based on what they look like, it's not nice and it's too personal for that person. You wouldn't like it if people mocked you on any aspect of your appearance for example and that's a no-no in the workplace. Hence there are written rules in the workplace which you have to abide by, it's usually in a contract of employment and/or a code of ethics/code of conduct that your company adheres to.

If you're employed, you know this.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Ah here.

What sort of world do you live in because I certainly don't want to live there.

See above real world reply to one of the Dan's.

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

It depends on the situation, as some posters here have internal anger issues at transgender people. Once they're employed, they are obliged to leave that irrational fear of transgender people outside the door of the workplace or else they breach their employment contract and/or code of ethics/code of conduct that the company adhere's to. Is it worth it to being prejudiced in the workplace? Just be nice and respectable to each work colleague.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between a personal attribute of a work colleague to non-personal stuff like football. You cannot just go around offending work colleagues based on what they look like, it's not nice and it's too personal for that person. You wouldn't like it if people mocked you on any aspect of your appearance for example and that's a no-no in the workplace. Hence there are written rules in the workplace which you have to abide by, it's usually in a contract of employment and/or a code of ethics/code of conduct that your company adheres to.

If you're employed, you know this.

See above real world reply to one of the Dan's.

What does this have to do with anything though?Did I miss the part where the woman who lost her job personally attacked and mocked any transgender person, colleague or not? Or do you consider her opinion that changing biological sex is not possible to be a personal attack?

[Deleted User]

I work with a very fat woman. As I have no reason to, I dont mention it. However, if she came I to work and told me that I must call her slim, I would find I'd absurd and I wouldn't do it.

I will not conform to someone else's delusion. I won't mention it or make a big deal about it, until I am in a situation where I must.

klaaaz

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What does this have to do with anything though?Did I miss the part where the woman who lost her job personally attacked and mocked any transgender person, colleague or not? Or do you consider her opinion that changing biological sex is not possible to be a personal attack?

Second time to you, we were talking about the general employment situation in Ireland. Not the UK or the far away USA who have their own rules and laws. Why would a person say that offensive thing in the job anyway, it doesn't belong in the workplace, be nice and respectable in the job to the work colleagues. It's not much to ask.

Elmer Jones

klaaaz wrote: »

Second time to you, we were talking about the general employment situation in Ireland. Not the UK or the far away USA who have their own rules and laws. Why would a person say that offensive thing in the job anyway, it doesn't belong in the workplace, be nice and respectable in the job to the work colleagues. It's not much to ask.

But this issue has got nothing to do with having good manners it's about a person being punished for expressing relatively tame opinions (by most peoples standards) outside of work.

Danzy

Klaaz.

You are embellishing what happened with lots of made up scenarios.

Zorya

Danzy wrote: »

Klaaz.

You are embellishing what happened with lots of made up scenarios.

But aren't you enjoying the armchair psychotherapy? The almost mystical distance diagnoses of repressed anger, internal rage and prejudice. I find it rather bracing myself.

klaaaz

Deleted User wrote: »

I work with a very fat woman. As I have no reason to, I dont mention it. However, if she came I to work and told me that I must call her slim, I would find I'd absurd and I wouldn't do it.

I will not conform to someone else's delusion. I won't mention it or make a big deal about it, until I am in a situation where I must.

We do know from the other thread that you get upset by how a person appears to you, no surprises that you judge the overweight person.

If only you changed your tune and sang a different song, try being nice and respectable to that overweight person, actually try being nice to everyone around you.

p1akuw47h5r3it

klaaaz wrote: »

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between a personal attribute of a work colleague to non-personal stuff like football. You cannot just go around offending work colleagues based on what they look like, it's not nice and it's too personal for that person. You wouldn't like it if people mocked you on any aspect of your appearance for example and that's a no-no in the workplace. Hence there are written rules in the workplace which you have to abide by, it's usually in a contract of employment and/or a code of ethics/code of conduct that your company adheres to.

If you're employed, you know this.

You don't seem to know what you wrote. You never mentioned mentioning a personal attribute of a work collegue. Read what you wrote slowly so you grasp what you actually said, because it clearly isn't what you meant to say.

Your full quote:

Why would someone bring up a discussion of their beliefs(of any persuasion) in a workplace? That stuff should be left at the door when an employed person enters the workplace, it has nothing to do with their day to day work that they are being paid to do. Plus it would probably be a breach of employment contract.

You just say beliefs. You don't mention anything about personal attributes. You just shoehorned that into the discussion after-the-fact.

klaaaz

Thaddeus Slow Silver wrote: »

You don't seem to know what you wrote. You never mentioned mentioning a personal attribute of a work collegue. Read what you wrote slowly so you grasp what you actually said, because it clearly isn't what you meant to say.

I certainly do. Big difference between a football discussion you mentioned and personal beliefs which affect your work colleagues and your employer, leave the latter outside the workplace.

Thaddeus Slow Silver wrote:

Your full quote:

You just say beliefs. You don't mention anything about personal attributes. You just shoehorned that into the discussion after-the-fact.

Those beliefs can be personally harmful to people, they do not belong in the workplace in the first place. When you start a job you are paid to do your job, not to use it as a platform to preach your beliefs. Actually you can thank me after you started a job for saving you from getting the sack. Of course, you are entitled not to sign up to the employer if their rules invalidate your beliefs.

p1akuw47h5r3it

klaaaz wrote: »

I certainly do. Big difference between a football discussion you mentioned and personal beliefs which affect your work colleagues and your employer, leave the latter outside the workplace.

But my discussion moved onto personal beliefs which was the point, conversations may start off as innocuous and develop into potentially controversial ones. I never mentioned anything about a colleagues personal attributes however. You just made that up.

klaaaz wrote: »

Those beliefs can be personally harmful to people, they do not belong in the workplace in the first place. When you start a job you are paid to do your job, not to use it as a platform to preach your beliefs. Actually you can thank me after you started a job for saving you from getting the sack. Of course, you are entitled not to sign up to the employer if their rules invalidate your beliefs.

I've been in constant employment the last 10 years, so don't need your advice. I've never encountered any problems, though I've obviously never encountered cry babies such as yourself.

BattleCorp

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Ok I will put it this way.

Let's say 2 people have a controversial opinion. One is a sole trader and one is an employee of a sole trader.

If that sole trader airs that controversial opinion, they cannot be fired for airing said opinion as they are their own boss.

If an employee airs that controversial opinion, they can lose their job.

Legislating so one could not lose their job for airing an opinion would prevent this scenario. Thus no-one would lose their job.

klaaaz wrote: »

See above real world reply to one of the Dan's.

Ha ha ha ha - Seriously

If I have a view that's different from my employer I can be sacked? Ah come on.

Ok, yes, you are right. I can be sacked. But it would be an unfair dismissal and the employer would be taken to the cleaners (in that scenario mentioned above).

klaaaz

DanDan6592 wrote: »

But my discussion moved onto personal beliefs which was the point, conversations may start off as innocuous and develop into potentially controversial ones. I never mentioned anything about a colleagues personal attributes however. You just made that up.

Discussing football is not personal beliefs or attributes. The point is that there is a difference between both, try walking away from controversy which affects a person.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I've been in constant employment the last 10 years, so don't need your advice. I've never encountered any problems, though I've obviously never encountered cry babies such as yourself.

If you're being a nice person in work, try being nice online too.