Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Candamir · 07-05-2019 12:51pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

My opinion that people are entitled to hold their own beliefs?

I know. Mad, isn’t it?

07-05-2019 12:51pm

KikiLaRue wrote:

You both are.

I just don't like being accused of saying something I didn't. It is that posters MO but you are right, I've been dragged off topic.

Duly noted.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 12:53pm

Candamir wrote: »

I know. Mad, isn’t it?

I've never suggested anything to the contrary.

Candamir · 07-05-2019 12:59pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I've never suggested anything to the contrary.

Great. So you’re yet another Transphobe.

I’m not sure if you have any feminist issues views, but if you do, you can be a TERF as well.

Welcome on board!

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 1:02pm

Candamir wrote: »

Great. So you’re yet another Transphobe.

I’m not sure if you have any feminist issues views, but if you do, you can be a TERF as well.

Welcome on board!

God these threads degenerate beyond any kind of meaningful debate after a certain point.

WinnyThePoo · 07-05-2019 1:03pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

This whole comparison with fat people this thread has degenerated into is farcical. This is not intelligent discussion. It's a set of ridiculous hypotheticals that bear very little resemblance to the original discussion.

No one is asking you to change your beliefs.

You don't have to believe the trans woman is a biological woman. That's not why this woman's contract was ended.

It was ended most likely because she violated the company's social media policy.

She was welcome to believe anything she wanted, no one was trying to change her beliefs. At the point where she was publicly expressing her beliefs in a deliberately provocative manner, and despite receiving a warning, the company saw a risk to their reputation and wanted to eliminate that risk.

They did this by not renewing, she wasn't fired.. She was just surplus to requirements.

07-05-2019 1:04pm

KikiLaRue wrote:

God these threads degenerate beyond any kind of meaningful debate after a certain point.

I think the jumping of the shark was when we were told that there is no biology was open to interpretation.

Candamir · 07-05-2019 1:08pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

God these threads degenerate beyond any kind of meaningful debate after a certain point.

Couldn’t agree more.

Pointless debating with science deniers.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 1:11pm

Candamir wrote: »

Couldn’t agree more.

Pointless debating with science deniers.

I haven't denied science at any point in the thread.

For me, it comes down to this: Should you be able to break your company's rules and still keep your job?

I believe employers have the right not to retain anyone who refuses to abide by rules they voluntarily signed up for.

Zorya · 07-05-2019 1:18pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

God these threads degenerate beyond any kind of meaningful debate after a certain point.

I would use the word derailed as opposed to degenerate.

There seem to be several preferred methods. One is to pounce on some trivial remark and set about massacring it ad nauseam, for example the fat thing. Another is to put stupid words in people's mouths. There are also those who appeal to some supposed insubstantiality in science. It happens all over boards. One method I notice on especially political threads is for new accounts to spring up and post horrible things so the progressive left side can then say Oh look at all these monsters in here. I think that is deliberate when people are failing to win an argument on the merits of their points.

Candamir · 07-05-2019 1:26pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I haven't denied science at any point in the thread.

For me, it comes down to this: Should you be able to break your company's rules and still keep your job?

I believe employers have the right not to retain anyone who refuses to abide by rules they voluntarily signed up for.

You misinterpreted me there - I’m not referring to you as a science denier.

I see and understand your point about employment law etc
Personally I think in this case the bar is set too high for what I’d consider an opinion that can get you fired/contract not renewed.
That is a bit frightening imo.

BattleCorp · 07-05-2019 2:09pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I haven't denied science at any point in the thread.

For me, it comes down to this: Should you be able to break your company's rules and still keep your job?

I believe employers have the right not to retain anyone who refuses to abide by rules they voluntarily signed up for.

Your company rules shouldn't impinge on your rights when you are outside of work. Your employer doesn't own you, nor should they get to control what you believe in.

If my company censured me for attending an anti-abortion or pro-abortion rally in my own time, then things like that are going too far.

If your contract says specifically that you can't talk about trans issues, then fair enough. But when contracts are incredibly vague so as to possibly cover every topic, then they aren't fair contracts.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 2:19pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Your company rules shouldn't impinge on your rights when you are outside of work. Your employer doesn't own you, nor should they get to control what you believe in.

If my company censured me for attending an anti-abortion or pro-abortion rally in my own time, then things like that are going too far.

If your contract says specifically that you can't talk about trans issues, then fair enough. But when contracts are incredibly vague so as to possibly cover every topic, then they aren't fair contracts.

You're more than entitled to hold that opinion. I'd say in that case don't sign any employment contract you believe to be unfair. If you do sign it, you could be held to it.

BattleCorp · 07-05-2019 2:29pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You're more than entitled to hold that opinion. I'd say in that case don't sign any employment contract you believe to be unfair. If you do sign it, you could be held to it.

If the contract is specific, then fine, you know what you are signing. But if it's too vague and open to interpretation, it shouldn't be enforceable.

Imagine this scenario: I signed my contract 15 years ago. It had a very vague disrepute clause in it. There was absolutely nothing wrong back then saying that transwomen are not real women but now it's frowned upon to say that. Should I be sacked for saying it now? It wasn't wrong to say it 15 years ago when I signed my contract so those are the terms I signed up for.

Just using that as an example, it's not a real life scenario.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 2:48pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

If the contract is specific, then fine, you know what you are signing. But if it's too vague and open to interpretation, it shouldn't be enforceable.

Imagine this scenario: I signed my contract 15 years ago. It had a very vague disrepute clause in it. There was absolutely nothing wrong back then saying that transwomen are not real women but now it's frowned upon to say that. Should I be sacked for saying it now? It wasn't wrong to say it 15 years ago when I signed my contract so those are the terms I signed up for.

Just using that as an example, it's not a real life scenario.

If it's a disrepute clause, the issue would be whether or not you brought the company into disrepute, it doesn't particularly matter what the topic was that brought them into disrepute.

BattleCorp · 07-05-2019 2:54pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

If it's a disrepute clause, the issue would be whether or not you brought the company into disrepute, it doesn't particularly matter what the topic was that brought them into disrepute.

That's my point, it should matter. It's too vague.

It's too vague because the sensitive issues keep changing. Something that's fine today might not be fine tomorrow.

Slightly different tangent here.
I've posted here that I don't like travellers due to my past experiences with them. Should I be sacked from my job for holding that view?

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 3:00pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's my point, it should matter. It's too vague.

It's too vague because the sensitive issues keep changing. Something that's fine today might not be fine tomorrow.

Slightly different tangent here.
I've posted here that I don't like travellers due to my past experiences with them. Should I be sacked from my job for holding that view?

Two things to consider here:
1. Are you the public face of your company in any context? E.g. this woman's bio was being used in decks because of her expertise in tenders.

2. Are you expressing those views in spaces where your name and face are attached to them? I don't see how posting it on boards would effect your job since I have absolutely no idea who you are IRL or what you work at. You're anonymous.

ceadaoin. · 07-05-2019 3:02pm

Zorya wrote: »

I would use the word derailed as opposed to degenerate.

There seem to be several preferred methods. One is to pounce on some trivial remark and set about massacring it ad nauseam, for example the fat thing. Another is to put stupid words in people's mouths. There are also those who appeal to some supposed insubstantiality in science. It happens all over boards. One method I notice on especially political threads is for new accounts to spring up and post horrible things so the progressive left side can then say Oh look at all these monsters in here. I think that is deliberate when people are failing to win an argument on the merits of their points.

Yes I was going to say it's deliberate. The completely nonsensical nature of the most recent exchange proves that. But hey, who cares once people stop talking about the subject at hand.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-05-2019 3:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh sure. No problem with that. I just can't accept that they are a biological woman.

Zorya wrote: »

I would use the word derailed as opposed to degenerate.

There seem to be several preferred methods. One is to pounce on some trivial remark and set about massacring it ad nauseam, for example the fat thing. Another is to put stupid words in people's mouths. There are also those who appeal to some supposed insubstantiality in science. It happens all over boards. One method I notice on especially political threads is for new accounts to spring up and post horrible things so the progressive left side can then say Oh look at all these monsters in here. I think that is deliberate when people are failing to win an argument on the merits of their points.

While guilty on the derailing thing (sorry!) I find a lot of the problems - generally speaking - is simply people not knowing the difference between debate and attack/defend/win/lose.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 07-05-2019 3:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh sure. No problem with that. I just can't accept that they are a biological woman.

Therein lies the problem - you're not being asked to accept it, just use a chosen form of address.

I mean, it's a workplace - very few if us are going to adopt the policies of our employers - but we're on their time to an extent and it comes with duties and repsonsibilities.

Outside of the workplace, that's your cal totally, or should be.

Zorya · 07-05-2019 3:49pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Therein lies the problem - you're not being asked to accept it, just use a chosen form of address.

I mean, it's a workplace - very few if us are going to adopt the policies of our employers - but we're on their time to an extent and it comes with duties and repsonsibilities.

Outside of the workplace, that's your cal totally, or should be.

I think you have got the story a bit wrong and I am not saying that in a mean way, but genuinely. I don't think anyone would have a problem with addressing people by the names or pronouns they wish for, well maybe a few odd people might laugh, but so what.

What got Forstater in trouble was stating publicly on her twitter account and in a Medium post that a ''Transwoman is not a woman.'' That has nothing to do with forms of address. It has only to do with the truth of biological sex.

Forstater said in addition that she is in favour of trans rights but not where they might impinge upon the sex-protected rights of biological females such as in sports or prisons or in sex-protected circumstances.

If one is compelled to publicly avow that a trans identifying person actually BECOMES the sex they identify with, then this is totalitarian ideological indoctrination.
She also did all this on her own time, as her own private person, not as a company representative, or under their banner.

07-05-2019 4:04pm

Zorya said what I was trying to get across albeit far more eloquently.

jimgoose · 07-05-2019 4:09pm

Zorya wrote: »

...one is compelled to publicly avow that a trans identifying person actually BECOMES the sex they identify with, then this is totalitarian ideological indoctrination...

Goodthink. :cool:

p1akuw47h5r3it · 07-05-2019 4:17pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

While guilty on the derailing thing (sorry!) I find a lot of the problems - generally speaking - is simply people not knowing the difference between debate and attack/defend/win/lose.

I thought the business/individual/emplyee/employer rights discussion was quite interesting all the same.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 4:18pm

Zorya wrote: »

If one is compelled to publicly avow that a trans identifying person actually BECOMES the sex they identify with, then this is totalitarian ideological indoctrination.

No one has been compelled to do any such thing.

Her company didn't say "Post a tweet that says trans women are women or you're fired".

I finally went back to read some of her stuff, and generally I think it's well written and the tone is fine. I only skimmed it, but this stood out to me as potentially very controversial:

I honestly don’t see the difference between Rachel Dolezal’s internal feeling that she is black and a man’s internal feeling that he is a woman (ie adult human female). Neither has basis in material reality.

I googled "What does science say about trans people?" to see if that statement has any merit, and this is the first article that comes up, signed by hundreds of biologists, geneticists and 9 Nobel prize winners. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46067559

Those of you who think science is unmistakably on your side are incorrect.

The letter, signed by over 700 biologists, over 100 geneticists, and nine Nobel Prize winners dispute the US government's proposal, saying it "is in no way 'grounded in science' as the administration claims".

"The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood," they write.

"Though scientists are just beginning to understand the biological basis of gender identity, it is clear that many factors, known and unknown, mediate the complex links between identity, genes, and anatomy," the authors write in the letter, which links to 10 different scientific studies.

Feisar · 07-05-2019 4:22pm

Augme wrote: »

Employers can never control what an employee says outside work. However an employer should have the right to decide if they want to no longer employ someone based on opinions they have expressed outside of work.

I don't know about that unless one is some sort of brand ambassador or a sports person for example that represents a team/sponsors.

Sounds like discrimination to me, bit like being fired for skin colour, no bearing on the job.

klaaaz · 07-05-2019 4:22pm

A small bunch of posters got offended that they cannot offend their work colleagues anymore, bet they're quickly reading up their contract of employment!

p1akuw47h5r3it · 07-05-2019 4:23pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

No one has been compelled to do any such thing.

Her company didn't say "Post a tweet that says trans women are women or you're fired".

I finally went back to read some of her stuff, and generally I think it's well written and the tone is fine. I only skimmed it, but this stood out to me as potentially very controversial:

I googled "What does science say about trans people?" to see if that statement has any merit, and this is the first article that comes up, signed by hundreds of biologists, geneticists and 9 Nobel prize winners. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46067559

Those of you who think science is unmistakably on your side are incorrect.

Gender and biological sex are different things though. They may be interchangeable for the vast majority, but gender is essentially what gender you "feel" you are. So you can be born a biological male but "feel" female. The science, as you, stated is unclear. Both are innate imo, and I think the idea that some people are "gender fluid" is nonsense.

It is clear about biological sex however.

KikiLaRue · 07-05-2019 4:24pm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Gender and biological sex are different things though. They may be interchangeable for the vast majority, but gender is essentially what gender you feel you are. So you can be born a biological male but "feel" female. The science, as you, stated is unclear.

It is clear about biological sex however.

Well 1,600 scientists disagree with you on that, and I trust them more than I trust you.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 07-05-2019 4:26pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Well 1,600 scientists disagree with you on that, and I trust them more than I trust you.

No they don't. They are saying gender is not well under stood. Not biological sex. They are different things.

Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Comments