classic33
Me
What shouldn't?
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
D
Deleted member 159
Guest
AndyRM
Elder Goth
That's not what I'm saying, at all.
Being able to do the job is one thing, sharing pish on social media and getting pinged for it is another, especially given her role as a social worker. I know a couple and don't agree with their views all the time, but they're not daft enough to share them in the public domain knowing that it brings the reputation of their workplace, potentially, into disrepute.
D
Deleted member 159
Guest
Fair enough
AuroraSaab
Squire
Even your smutty joke relies on everybody knowing sex is binary.
Full account of the Rachel Meade case here.
https://www.colekhan.co.uk/news/uvzuy6kcrtb5lwg59pxbs44tqbeuj2
You do it all the time, Andy. Do you honestly think people be disciplined at work for expressing views that are legal, and in fact pretty mainstream, on social media? Or even ones that aren't mainstream?
It was run of the mill, widely held beliefs like sex is binary. It was on a private Facebook page. Here you are though saying 'There's no smoke without fire' and endorsing the harassment of someone when you haven't even bothered to find out the allegations.
From the judgement. They failed to check whether the complainant Woolton's complaint was malicious before disciplining Meade:
Concludes that Meade's views are objectively not transphobic, or impaired her ability to do her job, they just contradicted 'trans lobbying group' Stonewall.
And further, all her views were perfectly legal:
The process is the punishment though. Despite this win Rachel Meade has had over a year of stress, anxiety, abuse on social media, and this case hanging over her career.
There might be a time, Andy, when someone complains about you and then you'll be grateful for cases like this, rather than your employer being allowed to discipline you for something you said on Facebook that one person didn't like.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Squire
Just to add, 2 other social workers were also suspended I believe, for not 'dobbing in' Rachel Meade. All on the basis of one man's complaint because he had an axe to grind about gender critical views.
That man now works at Sport England. Doesn't fill me with confidence that he might be responsible for women's sports in some way. I still don't think he should be sacked for his views though just because some people don't like them.
That man now works at Sport England. Doesn't fill me with confidence that he might be responsible for women's sports in some way. I still don't think he should be sacked for his views though just because some people don't like them.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
"Here you are though saying 'There's no smoke without fire' and endorsing the harassment"
I didn't.
The rest of your post is your take on it, as I've said that's fine, I disagree with what you're saying but whatever.
As for my employer? Unlikely. That said, I did get disciplined for making a joke in an email at my previous job, which nearly got very serious because of an over zealous IT guy who didn't actually understand what I'd said.
So no, I'm not ever likely to be grateful for cases like this. I think they're frivolous and nonsensical frankly, and do absolutely nothing for "common sense" beyond "Maybe think about what you put out online if you're not sure how your employer or someone else might react."
I didn't.
The rest of your post is your take on it, as I've said that's fine, I disagree with what you're saying but whatever.
As for my employer? Unlikely. That said, I did get disciplined for making a joke in an email at my previous job, which nearly got very serious because of an over zealous IT guy who didn't actually understand what I'd said.
So no, I'm not ever likely to be grateful for cases like this. I think they're frivolous and nonsensical frankly, and do absolutely nothing for "common sense" beyond "Maybe think about what you put out online if you're not sure how your employer or someone else might react."
AuroraSaab
Squire
You literally said "It must have been pretty grim stuff for one of her "friends" to dob her in", which suggests you think the disciplinary proceedings (which the tribunal agreed were harassment) were warranted.
It wasn't grim stuff. It was mainstream beliefs that most people hold, expressed on a private Facebook page.
Frivolous? I've just looked it up. Disciplinary action started in November 2020. That's 3 years out of a woman's life with this hanging over her. I doubt you would be so blasé about it if it were you under that shadow for 3 years.
You honestly think people should accept suspensions and black marks on their records rather than challenge malicious complaints from people with an axe to grind? And to challenge those allegations is frivolous?
These cases are neither frivolous nor nonsensical. They protect all of us, including you, from being sacked or disciplined for expressing beliefs which are legal to hold. I don't agree with some of your views but I wouldn't see you sacked for them.
AndyRM
Elder Goth
You'd be wrong in that assumption, as well as others in your post.
I hadn't read what she said, but someone obviously was upset enough to report it, mainstream or otherwise.
3 years is a long time to have something hanging over you, I agree, but again I'd go back to my point that when you're in that kind of job you have to be bloody careful what you do and say.
D
Deleted member 159
Guest
That's why I posted the piss take X link of the offended culture .
It should have never got off the ground for disciplinary action. Her employer should have said , she perfectly entitled to say those remarks. End of
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Depends on the employers HR department or social media policy (if they have one), but broadly I agree.
monkers
Legendary Member
Hardly 'smutty' Aurora - you are such a prude.
Reproductive sex is binary, but not so binary that all adult people are capable of reproducing in the usual way. Otherwise sex is not so binary because the law includes 'perceptions'. The GC brigade would start campaigning to ban masculine looking women from women's spaces too, except that would include many of their own number.
All the talk is of biological sex; if the EqA is changed to that wording, there will another 20 years of wrangling over a definition of 'biological sex'.
I've made sensible suggestion how a lot of the disputes can be resolved, but nothing will satisfy the absolutist. We will just continue dividing down our communities by difference, one detail at a time until everyone will need their own private spaces because they are not 'comfortable' having to share anything with anyone.
D
Deleted member 159
Guest
I see it differently, once this has been clarified by having biological sex written into law, the craze will fade for the vast majority.
Sure there will be a miniscule number who want to go through the whole process, but once easy avenues are blocked from women's sport, private spaces are etc the numbers will wither.
Sure there will be a miniscule number who want to go through the whole process, but once easy avenues are blocked from women's sport, private spaces are etc the numbers will wither.
icowden
Squire
Of course. But you don't need to transition. If you get off on wearing a dress and want ready access to young women, just call yourself Debbie. No-one is allowed to challenge you.
That's the risk factor we keep talking about. That and whether or not this should be considered a mental health issue.
