The arts are still captured - Denise Fahmy

[ArabellaScott]

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-art-world-must-escape-gender-theory/

Despite progress in health and various ETs, the arts remain very much in thrall to extreme gender ideology.

'..gender ideology in which anyone can “identify” as anything and institutions bend over backwards to satisfy the 0.5 per cent of the population who report they don’t identify with the sex they were born.'
That sums it up brilliantly! Great article.

I wonder if Creative Scotland would have given so much money to a Rein in which every other detail was the same but the premise wasn't 'queer'. Actually I don't wonder I know they wouldn't have. Munro said as much in his testimony in his recent appearance before a ScotGov panel. He as good as called the 'queer community' boundaryless fetishists. He explicitly compared them as such as opposed to the wider community. He's not come to this conclusion alone. He's symptomatic of a culture who believe normal rules of dignity, decency and safeguarding don't apply to people who are labelled 'queer'. No matter what the wider community, which despite what he believes includes everyone, thinks of it. He and his ilk are laying down a welcome mat and banging a drum for every deviant prepared to make a modicum of effort to join the glitter family.

It's odd that on the one hand sensitivity readers are censoring the mildest words in new and classic texts while the other hand is writing massive cheques for 'genital contact', which apparently isn't sex. Though I shouldn't be surprised that a big chunk of the art world no longer knows what sex is.

'Genital contact isn't real sex' - that's a phrase that's I'm still walking around, marvelling at, and wondering when it will sink in among the wider public that the professional arts world in Scotland has completely jumped the fucking shark.

Was going to attach this to the original thread about Denise Fahmy and the tribunal finding against Arts Council England, but can’t find it.

According to Tribunal Tweets, theres another tribunal starting today, involving another member of staff and the Arts Council. This TRA is claiming victimisation because they were disciplined for signing the petition against Denise and all other Gender Critical staff at the Arts Council. This petition was a key piece of evidence in Denise’s case.

IIRC that petition was created and distributed around staff to get GC people sacked from the Arts Council. So will be interesting to see if they are successful in a counter claim.

Oh, interesting.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4770590-denise-fahmy-taking-arts-council-england-to-an-employment-tribunal-because-she-has-been-harassed-for-being-gender-critical

Thread linked for you below if you want to update it, but maybe good to have a separate one as well.

That’s the one, thanks Eresh

I’m interested from an employment point of view, whether TRA can argue they are free to lobby for GC staff to be ejected from a place of work. And whether an employer will be in hot water legally if they discipline a person for expressing strong anti GC views.

I’ll keep an eye on TwiX and update.

@PowerTulle this is an interesting point: 'IIRC that petition was created and distributed around staff to get GC people sacked from the Arts Council. So will be interesting to see if they are successful in a counter claim.'

Given the judge's comments in the Allison Bailey v Stonewall appeal just today this could be argued to be a protest rather than causing someone to be sacked?

Yes, what exactly counts as harassment and victimisation and what is just airing views?

I followed TTweets on the original case and the petition described GC staff as a ‘cancer’ in the organisation. Which seems particularly unpleasant. I’d have thought a disciplinary totally appropriate personally. But we’ll see. Tribunal on hold until 2pm.

I've updated the original thread with a link to this one.

There's a Museum of Transology? 🙄I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Thats interesting. I'm not sure they have a leg to stand on.
If I openly signed a petition going round my workplace that described colleagues as a cancer, I'm pretty sure I'd get into deep trouble.
Even those colleagues were utterly awful and doing awful things, I think they'd have a genuine grievance against me if I did that instead of raising concerns via the proper channels and HR.
Dismissals are supposed to be handled according to employment law, not by popular vote. It's not Big Brother.

It's now in session

x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1816093080119849092?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

'C: I dont know detail of that
JF: You signed the petition without knowing what LGBA has said?
C: I didn't know that's right'

Oh, boy.

'JF: Do you accept your comments conflated GC with transphobia?
C: I didn't understand the difference between those two words really
JF: Do you now?
C: I think so but Im not 100%. I was going off what was told to me by t colleagues'

JF You first posted on 11 May at [time x]. The email from SB was sent at 1.39. So within 8 minutes of receiving her email you signed the petition and put your comment on it?

C: I cant really remember. If that's what it says on a timestamped document but I cant remember

JF: As we explored, your knowledge was relatively incomplete, you weren't at drop-in and so on but quite strong comments from you. Do you think you acted rashly?

C: Possibly yes.

And this person is the diversity officer?!

JF: You conflate GC with racism dont you?

C: The term race critical.. discrimination hurts. I dont understand how GC interacts. Im looking at it from a trans perspective with no understanding of GC being protected. It was entirely to support t colleagues.

JF: As of today you are denying your comments could be seen as harassment?

C: Yes

Some of her comment (from the judgment)

"If I came to work one day, and attended a drop-in session where staff members were openly making racist statements, and asking Arts Council what protection will be offered to them as race-critical staff members - I would feel terrified. I can't imagine what my trans and nb colleagues are feeling right now..."

Para 40

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64ac0f5ce1aab2000c03ac7d/MsDDFahmyvvArtsCouncillEngland6000042-20222Judgment.pdf

JF: Para 16 of your WS. Your victimisation claim is you were treated detrimentally bc of your protected act. What is the protected act is what the ET must decide. The only ref to the PA is at end of para 16. Its your speaking up. I take this to mean your comment?
C: Yes

JF: Three bullets of allegations. Underneath CA says these allegations relate to comments on a petition. R was clear from the start that's what it was about?
C: Yes
JF: Your WS says those comments were a PA?
C: Absolutely supporting t colleagues

She is claiming that her comment, which was partially reproduced in Denise Fahmy's judgment as I copied from it, was a protected act under the Equality Act, presumably the gender reassignment characteristic.

More about the comments:

work. Investigation first.
C: Yes
JF: CA talks about comments being graded by seriousness. Cat A comments were focus.

This wasn't about people putting their name to a petition. It was about serious comments.
C: Er so its about the comments rather than signatures, yeah
JF: So you did understand that?
C: Yeah

JF: Here you say you have not provided a response to the disciplinary allegations. Why wouldn't your complaint be the defence to the allegations?
C: Im just saying I want my complaint dealt with separately
JF: 3rd bullet. CA is clear that its not that you supported t colleagues

Its your comments
C: It says my comments met the criteria before we've had the investigation so already I feel like a decision had been made...
JF: My point is the reason for the disc. is not that you support t colleagues its the nature of your comments
C: Its the same thing

AA: JF didn't articulate the PA correctly as in Cs evidence. The comments themselves were part of the PA for her.
J: Ok thank you.

JF: My point is that CA's email is about the comments and the nature of them. It wasn't signing the petition or leaving other non-offensive comments. My follow up point, is your DaW complaint doesn't really engage with CA's point about why the disciplinary is happening.

Does this mean a belief in gender identity is being posited as WORIADS?

What is 'WORIADS'? Sorry to ask, but I've no idea.

Worthy Of Respect In A Democratic Society, after Maya's win.

Does this mean a belief in gender identity is being posited as WORIADS?

Could be, I took it to mean that what she thought of as supporting trans people in her workplace was the protected act.