Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

KikiLaRue · 06-05-2019 1:59pm

Candamir wrote: »

Much of Peter Boylan’s views were opinion. Informed by his medical expertise, but opinion none the less. Peter Boyan works at the National Maternity Hospital. This is a hospital with a Catholic ethos. The Patron is the Catholic Church. The arch bishop of Dublin is chairman of the board. You couldn’t make up a more direct conflict between two sides.

Peter Boylan didn’t get sacked for expressing his views. Nor was he sanctioned or disciplined.

Can you imagine the outrage if he was?

But here we have a women who expresses an opinion, that is not derogatory or hateful, or anywhere near that, yet she is fired.

And you think this is acceptable?
Frightening new world order.

In your *opinion* it’s not derogatory. Many would disagree. I haven’t made up my mind, but you don’t get to just decide what other people’s opinions should or should not be.

Augme · 06-05-2019 2:00pm

Candamir wrote: »

Of course they can! Like they took sanction in the past on pregnant single teachers, and gay teachers had to live a lie. But even the church has come on from that stance now.

Imagine the church being in a more modern liberal place than the rest of ye!

Lol, eh no. Employment laws have come on. Not the church. Your delluded if you think the church would hire a gay teacher or a single mother if they had the choice.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 06-05-2019 2:01pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

In your *opinion* it’s not derogatory. Many would disagree. I haven’t made up my mind, but you don’t get to just decide what other people’s opinions should or should not be.

But you can just decide to fire someone for airing said opinion

p1akuw47h5r3it · 06-05-2019 2:02pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It’s not f**king censorship. What you want is freedom of speech AND protection from consequences. You are only entitled to the former.

No. I already stated protection from one such consequence, that of losing your job. You Silly Sausage you.

klaaaz · 06-05-2019 2:05pm

Breanna Slimy Variable wrote: »

The aggression is extraordinary. Maya is infinitely more civilised.

The writer of the article is actually the provoking one, throwing insults.

Candamir wrote:

It’s not behind a pay wall. What in it is discriminatory?

The Times article, why can't the people who constantly post gender threads state their links to sites without a wall?

Candamir · 06-05-2019 2:07pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

In your *opinion* it’s not derogatory. Many would disagree. I haven’t made up my mind, but you don’t get to just decide what other people’s opinions should or should not be.

I’m still waiting for someone to point out the part that they feel is derogatory.

I do realise that we all have different opinions. My point is that the piece doesn’t cross the line, and if it hovers somewhere close, the sanction of being fired for it is heavy handed to say the least.

But nobody has pointed out a potential derogatory part.

Candamir · 06-05-2019 2:09pm

klaaaz wrote: »

The writer of the article is actually the provoking one, throwing insults.

The Times article, why can't the people who constantly post gender threads state their links to sites without a wall?

Hang on, the writer of the article, that you haven’t read, is provoking and throwing insults?

And the Labour party’s women’s officer - who is responding to an article where she raises the issue of women’s rights - tells her to go fuçk herself, and that’s ok??

I remember from before you seem to have issues with links!

The article the woman wrote is linked in the OP and it’s not behind a pay wall.

KikiLaRue · 06-05-2019 2:10pm

Candamir wrote: »

I’m still waiting for someone to point out the part that they feel is derogatory.

I do realise that we all have different opinions. My point is that the piece doesn’t cross the line, and if it hovers somewhere close, the sanction of being fired for it is heavy handed to say the least.

But nobody has pointed out a potential derogatory part.

No one was fired. A contract wasn’t renewed. They are different things and require different levels of justification.

Zorya · 06-05-2019 2:13pm

klaaaz wrote: »

The writer of the article is actually the provoking one, throwing insults.

The Times article, why can't the people who constantly post gender threads state their links to sites without a wall?

2 threads? At most. Can't remember the other one :rolleyes: Constantly? Hyperbole much? Burn the place to the ground!

No pay wall. You might have to sign in with an email address. Believe me in my embarrassed financial state, I don't pay to read any shagging newspaper :pac:

06-05-2019 2:13pm

KikiLaRue wrote:

The church has come on my hairy arsehole.

What a quote

suicide_circus · 06-05-2019 2:13pm

a formerly suppressed group is now in the ascendancy and is seeking revenge.

good healthy revenge.

Candamir · 06-05-2019 2:13pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

No one was fired. A contract wasn’t renewed. They are different things and require different levels of justification.

Still no clue as to the potentially derogatory part of the article.

Zorya · 06-05-2019 2:14pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It’s not f**king censorship. What you want is freedom of speech AND protection from consequences. You are only entitled to the former.

Freedom of speech implies protection from consequences. We are not talking about any right to hate speech. But protection from the consequences of speaking freely (ie thinking freely) in general is precisely what the freedom means. What else?

Candamir · 06-05-2019 2:16pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The church has come on my hairy arsehole.

The law now prevents discrimination on those grounds, it’s not a principled step forward the church took.

Mmm. I’m not really implying that the church has come on, more that we have regressed.

Zorya · 06-05-2019 2:16pm

Originally Posted by KikiLaRue
The church has come on my hairy arsehole.

Deleted User wrote: »

What a quote

:D:D hahaha too much ...gotta go back out to the gardening

Gimme A Pound · 06-05-2019 2:17pm

klaaaz wrote: »

The writer of the article is actually the provoking one, throwing insults.

It really isn't. That is some bizarre definition of throwing insults. People should let go of the need to look liberal (or conservative) all the time and just think for themselves.

She doesn't take issue with individuals being trans, she is talking about a far bigger picture to do with language and science and distortion of reality.

If a man transitions, he is not a woman, he is a trans woman.

Sex is not a social construct.

KikiLaRue · 06-05-2019 2:17pm

Candamir wrote: »

Still no clue as to the potentially derogatory part of the article.

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 not going to explain it to you point by point, I’m sure both sides of the debate are being explored in detail on Twitter.

Candamir · 06-05-2019 2:21pm

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 not going to explain it to you point by point, I’m sure both sides of the debate are being explored in detail on Twitter.

Not even one point. Ok so.

KikiLaRue · 06-05-2019 2:21pm

Zorya wrote: »

Freedom of speech implies protection from consequences. We are not talking about any right to hate speech. But protection from the consequences of speaking freely (ie thinking freely) in general is precisely what the freedom means. What else?

It really, really doesn’t and I’m not going to engage with you any more on this until you do some research on it.

At its heart, freedom of speech is about protecting individuals and the press from government interference with their right to voice opposing, anti-government views.

suicide_circus · 06-05-2019 2:22pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It’s not f**king censorship. What you want is freedom of speech AND protection from consequences. You are only entitled to the former.

how about the consequences resulting from claiming you are a different gender to that of your body?

WinnyThePoo · 06-05-2019 2:22pm

Ah so she didn't lose her job. Her contract wasn't extended.

KikiLaRue · 06-05-2019 2:26pm

Candamir wrote: »

Not even one point. Ok so.

Why would I bother? Going to read that article again to highlight the points that might be contentious just so you can reject it? You’ve said repeatedly you don’t think it’s derogatory so I doubt I can change your mind.

From memory, the woman got very few retweets and replies and decided to make her tweets steadily more controversial until she provoked a debate.

So she consciously decided to be provocative, was warned by her employers that many would find it offensive, told them she was going to continue regardless and is now somehow surprised that being a pain in her employer’s hole had resulted in her contract not being renewed.

klaaaz · 06-05-2019 2:28pm

Candamir wrote: »

Hang on, the writer of the article, that you haven’t read, is provoking and throwing insults?

And the Labour party’s women’s officer - who is responding to an article where she raises the issue of women’s rights - tells her to go fuçk herself, and that’s ok??

Breanna Slimy Variable wrote: »

It really isn't. That is some bizarre definition of throwing insults. People should let go of the need to look liberal (or conservative) all the time and just think for themselves.

She doesn't take issue with individuals being trans, she is talking about a far bigger picture to do with language and science and distortion of reality.

If a man transitions, he is not a woman, he is a trans woman.

Sex is not a social construct.

She did take issue with transgender people with her bias. She called trans women as transgender males, like cis men and trans men.

I'd agree with the first comment in reaction to the article

No wonder mainstream womens organisations want nothing to do with the fringe element.

Gimme A Pound · 06-05-2019 2:30pm

Hardly throwing insults.

klaaaz · 06-05-2019 2:32pm

Zorya wrote: »

No pay wall. You might have to sign in with an email address. Believe me in my embarrassed financial state, I don't pay to read any shagging newspaper :pac:

Just because you sign up to a foreign newspaper, don't expect the rest of us to do likewise just to read your articles.

Zorya · 06-05-2019 2:37pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It really, really doesn’t and I’m not going to engage with you any more on this until you do some research on it.

At its heart, freedom of speech is about protecting individuals and the press from government interference with their right to voice opposing, anti-government views.

She worked for a non profit organisation ''Think Tank''. Think Tanks do research and advocacy and lobbying to influence govt policy making. They are supposed to encourage diverse thinking. CGD is ranked in the top 15 global Think Tanks. It receives funding from among others, governments. Various governments involvement is central to the CGD.
As an aside it's home base being in Washington may make it amenable to first amendment protection rights.

These Think Tanks working to effect policy changes at government level globally should at the very least be subject to the UN declaration of human rights, to have any sort of credibility.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Candamir · 06-05-2019 2:37pm

klaaaz wrote: »

She did take issue with transgender people with her bias. She called trans women as transgender males, like cis men and trans men.

I'd agree with the first comment in reaction to the article

No wonder mainstream womens organisations want nothing to do with the fringe element.

Yes, I agree that referring to trans women as transgender males (and I think the use of male and not men is important) was wrong. She explains the use of it in her reply to the comment you posted - she was trying to describe a biologically male body, and that there are situations where it’s relevant and important to make that distinction, and that the word male should not be ring fences and off limits.
So that explanation makes sense in context.

Candamir · 06-05-2019 2:38pm

klaaaz wrote: »

Just because you sign up to a foreign newspaper, don't expect the rest of us to do likewise just to read your articles.

The article wasn’t behind a paywall. The Times discussion of it may be, but you don’t need someone else’s notes to have your own discussion do you?

Zorya · 06-05-2019 2:39pm

klaaaz wrote: »

Just because you sign up to a foreign newspaper, don't expect the rest of us to do likewise just to read your articles.

Dem fordeners tuk owr nuuus :mad:

Candamir · 06-05-2019 2:40pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Why would I bother? Going to read that article again to highlight the points that might be contentious just so you can reject it? You’ve said repeatedly you don’t think it’s derogatory so I doubt I can change your mind.

From memory, the woman got very few retweets and replies and decided to make her tweets steadily more controversial until she provoked a debate.

So she consciously decided to be provocative, was warned by her employers that many would find it offensive, told them she was going to continue regardless and is now somehow surprised that being a pain in her employer’s hole had resulted in her contract not being renewed.

Not so I can reject it - so I can see where you’re coming from.
What’s the point in shouting discrimination when you won’t tell me where I’m going wrong?

Is it not that what she said wasn’t so terrible after all?

rgodard80a · 06-05-2019 3:26pm

Zorya wrote: »

She worked for a non profit organisation ''Think Tank''.

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.
And that's not even including the possibility that they are equal and subject to normal judgement and dismissal based on their performance alone.

But being fired for holding the traditional opinion on sex and gender is ridiculous.
You can see why the likes of Trump got voted in in America, why normal people have to draw a line in the sand on ridiculousness. When opposing views are being forced on them through legal means, politically, commercial sabotage and name and shame policies.

conorhal · 06-05-2019 3:32pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Poppycock.

If I employ someone and I find out that their political ideology of choice is that of ISIS, and that they advocate their views online regularly, I should be well within my right to terminate their employment.

Free speech is a right. Free speech with no consequences is not a right.

When you sign a contract with an employer, you agree to abide by their rules. If you break those rules, you might be terminated.

I especially like how you conflate to position that 'there are only 2 genders' with that of a terrorist organization.

You're definately suited to HR with your proportionate and measured strawmanning.

klaaaz · 06-05-2019 4:00pm

rgodard80a wrote: »

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.
And that's not even including the possibility that they are equal and subject to normal judgement and dismissal based on their performance alone.

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

rgodard80a wrote: »

But being fired for holding the traditional opinion on sex and gender is ridiculous.
You can see why the likes of Trump got voted in in America, why normal people have to draw a line in the sand on ridiculousness. When opposing views are being forced on them through legal means, politically, commercial sabotage and name and shame policies.

The person did not get fired, their contract was not renewed. Trump got in based on conservatism just like some posters here with their conservative views. Who are those normal people, the conservatives?

BattleCorp · 06-05-2019 4:05pm

Candamir wrote: »

Hang on, the writer of the article, that you haven’t read, is provoking and throwing insults?

And the Labour party’s women’s officer - who is responding to an article where she raises the issue of women’s rights - tells her to go fuçk herself, and that’s ok??

I remember from before you seem to have issues with links!

The article the woman wrote is linked in the OP and it’s not behind a pay wall.

I'd hazard a guess that telling someone to go fcuk themselves is pretty much against the Labour Party's policy too.

So she should be sacked also. Am I doing this correctly?

Gimme A Pound · 06-05-2019 4:06pm

klaaaz wrote: »

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

Oh absolutely, but to some, the definition of nice and respectful is walking on eggshells.

klaaaz · 06-05-2019 4:18pm

Breanna Slimy Variable wrote: »

Oh absolutely, but to some, the definition of nice and respectful is walking on eggshells.

Well then for those who cannot hold back their anger at getting offended in the workplace at the sight of a transgender person working with them in their office, perhaps they should get anger management classes and counselling for the upset caused to their sensitivities.

BattleCorp · 06-05-2019 4:20pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It’s not f**king censorship. What you want is freedom of speech AND protection from consequences. You are only entitled to the former.

Yes, it is censorship. It's censorship through the back door.

It's the shutting down of opposing views by removing the livelihood of those with the opposing views.

Once again, I'll repeat.

I'm not against consequences for people who promote illegal views such as kill Jews, burn the blacks, rape the Irish. By all means throw the book at those people.

But sacking people for saying that they think people with a penis are male and people with a vagina are female, that's ridiculous.

Zorya · 06-05-2019 4:21pm

Breanna Slimy Variable wrote: »

Oh absolutely, but to some, the definition of nice and respectful is walking on eggshells.

It also seems to mean denying material reality.

No regular person is going to be an arsehole, I would rarely be rude to someone. Though believe me I will be as rude to a trans dickhead as I will be to a non-trans dickhead.

But I am not going to say things that are not true.

This whole thing of waiting until we find out that sex is in the brain is bullcrap too. We will be a long long long time waiting until we map the brain and all its wonders and in the meantime we should go with the Occam's razor approach regarding DNA, chromosomes and sex genotype.

People are looking to support psychic powers in the brains mechanisms too, have been for a long time, even at the highest levels of state sponsored shenanigans. Should we in the meantime reorder the workings of the world on the basis that we might all be proved someday to be prophets?

People are looking for God in the brain too - they might get there faster than finding definitive male and female sex is in the brain, what with those mysterious microtubules. That'll be a fun day

ceadaoin. · 06-05-2019 4:22pm

klaaaz wrote: »

Well then for those who cannot hold back their anger at getting offended in the workplace at the sight of a transgender person working with them in their office, perhaps they should get anger management classes and counselling for the upset caused to their sensitivities.

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

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 06-05-2019 4:28pm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I did in my first point on the topic. The rights of the individual trump the rights of the business. As I said you can put out in the public arena that you do not support your employees views.

What if you can't record proof?

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.

klaaaz · 06-05-2019 4:29pm

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 · 06-05-2019 4:30pm

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 · 06-05-2019 4:39pm

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 · 06-05-2019 4:46pm

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 · 06-05-2019 4:46pm

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 · 06-05-2019 4:47pm

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 · 06-05-2019 4:49pm

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. · 06-05-2019 4:51pm

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 · 06-05-2019 5:00pm

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 · 06-05-2019 5:29pm

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‘

Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Comments