Woman loses job raising concerns about risk assessments and self id

[RunningWild12]

Really appalling and scary account of a woman losing her job in Scotland due to raising concerns around risk assessment and self id.

“voiced concerns to a colleague about, firstly, the adequacy of assessment of risk that had been carried out in relation to the proposal that 'self-identification' should become the only criterion for biological males to be legally considered females and, secondly, the wisdom of the guidance provided to schools by Education Scotland“

It’s here in full www.scottishreview.net/MMorrison476a.html

[Chocalatecappuccino]

Absolutely horrible. Poor woman.

[ScrimshawTheSecond]

That is pretty terrifying.

An entirely reasonable and measured letter - how on earth has this woman been fired?

[ByGrabtharsHammarWhatASaving]

elements of the guidance provided by Education Scotland are concerning, particularly as they also seem to 'over-egg' what the law actually says. It advises teachers that they are not obliged to inform parents that the school has encouraged and activated their child's 'social transition'.

Is there any way of verifying this? That's really scary if it's true! But yeh, this is just one more way to silence women. Women are most effected by this = most likely to speak out = mostly likely to lose jobs. And the women who are worst effected are likely to be in the least secure jobs. If I was a single mum on a zero hour contract I wouldn't say anything! It's a scary time to be a woman but also a citizen of the UK in general. What kind of democracy is this where people can't speak up for their rights without fear of sanction?

[theOtherPamAyres]

I wished that she had named the charity that sacked her.

It's another one to add to the growing list of charities that will ignore safeguarding principles to accommodate trans ideology.

[Erythronium]

Shocking. Taking women's livelihoods from us for the sake of a misogynist ideology.

[OldCrone]

Is there any way of verifying this?

A transgender young person may not have told their family about their gender identity. Inadvertent disclosure could cause needless stress for the young person or could put them at risk. Therefore, it is best to not disclose information to parents or carers without the young person's permission

www.lgbtyouth.org.uk/media/1344/supporting-transgender-young-people.pdf

On page 23.

[ScrimshawTheSecond]

I've emailed Ruth Maguire to express my concerns. Don't envy these women; they're going to get a lot of flak.

I hope this might lead to a wider debate, though, dear god it has to happen at some point, surely?!

[ScrimshawTheSecond]

Ach, wrong thread, sorry.

[Trousering]

The legal advice she was given was that the case was flimsy or else they would not have asked her to go voluntarily. So off she dutifully went like a good little girl.

I realise that standing up for yourself takes strength and resilience but honestly we really should.

I know there will be a whole list of posts following this saying how people are too scared and you know what, I get it. But go say that on a knitting thread or a surrendered wife thread, not a feminism one okay?

[littlbrowndog]

Yeah trousering. We gotta stand strong

Am standing strong on something in sport at moment. Fuck em. This is where I will fight all it takes for sake# of young girls in sport

[Angryresister]

Why are all these so called charities in thrall? So sorry for every woman that speaks up and is treated so badly, but we must continue to speak about our concerns. Bloody hard to stay strong against all the crap though.

[Bowlofbabelfish]

This is horrendous. I’ve posted very civil things about needing to maintain women’s protections if the law is changed.

What this workplace is saying is that women having rights is transphobic.

I often worry about someone reporting me to work, which is why I’m careful to post only things I would say and stand by in real life. But by god, if someone did, I’d fucking fight it all the way.

[Trousering]

At the risk of being a pedant here there was no "fight" required. Just the word no.

No to resigning voluntarily.

The legal advice was clear.

The whole story about how horrible it would be is her reaction.

The word no would just have likely puffed the whole thing over as led to attempts to dismiss. Don't run away scared from injustice.

[Erythronium]

This sort of thing will happen though. Not every woman has the strength to fight her employers on principle, knowing that they want to get rid of her. It would be hard to see a future in an organisation which had already told you that they didn't want you and wanted you to leave. The law is one thing, but going in to work in a hostile environment day after day would take its toll.

[Lumene]

I don’t think the woman who spoke up is the one we should be criticising here.

[DarkAtEndOfTunnel]

Seconded Lumene. You don't know what her circumstances were. Those saying she should have shown more 'strength and resilience' need to consider what those terms actually mean. They often mean 'having high financial reserves' and 'high family/ social support'. Or maybe it was just a bad time.

[DarkAtEndOfTunnel]

Law is not the same thing as justice, and most of us know it. There is only so far you can argue. I'm glad you agree that working in a toxic environment, where fellow co-workers treat you as if you are constantly on sufferance and every little thing that goes wrong around you is your fault, is no fun. Once you are in that position it is a question of time before you are pushed out, and then you may struggle to get a new job in a poor employment market without good references. Writing about it in public is a strong statement in itself. Blimey, would rape victims get the same response from you?

[OldCrone]

Blimey, would rape victims get the same response from you?

[MoleSmokes]

I find the nitpicking, quibbling and "what I would have done/what she could have done/what most people would have done" comments on this woman's decision to resign extremely lacking in empathy. Perhaps due to a lack of insight into how traumatic and extraordinarily long-winded Disciplinary Procedures can be?

The first stage of a Disciplinary Procedure is not the one to consider, it is the last stage, an Employment Tribunal (same in Scotland?) because it might need to go to that. If so, reckon on a year to 18 months of further stress in the workplace, affecting health, relationships plus interest from the press.

Not forgetting this is not any issue, it is a Trans issue. We know how TRAs target organisations and individuals.

This is all assuming that the Charity has decent HR Procedures. Many do not and are incompetent and/or aggressive when it comes to industrial relations.

The woman does not mention a trade union so perhaps the Charity does not recognise a Trade Union or she is not a member?

Unfortunately, even if there is a Union and she is a member they might not have the appetite to take this case on because many unions, (and the Scottish TUC now?) have fallen under the "No debate" Trans spell. (See "Regulatory Capture" thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture )

The first stage can be stretched out by HR so that a process that should take a matter of days or weeks takes months.

Again, this is not any issue, it is a Trans Issue. However weak the case against her in theory, it is not hard to imagine the direct and indirect pressure that might be placed on the Charity. I dread to think of the personal impact.

Hard to see the case not falling at that hurdle. Then one or more stages of Appeal. The last one probably to Board/Non-exec members. Finally, having exhausted all internal procedures, perhaps (only perhaps) there might be grounds to take to an Employment Tribunal.

This is all speculative but you have to look at the worst-case scenario when making a decision whether or not to fight something like this. Also the support (and protection?) available, what else is going on in your life and whether you want to stay with that employer, re-employment prospects, etc.

A reminder of what she actually said on this subject in the article (bold text my emphasis):

"Anyone who enters into the debate about transgender recognition can expect to become a target of activists and social media trolls. So I do not enter into this minefield lightly. Three recent events have prompted me to write this. The first of these was losing my livelihood. The second was the first minister's response to a journalist, when she was addressing the UN on human rights last month, in which she dismissed medical and scientific evidence. The third was the letter by a 'collective' of 70 women, describing the views of those who did not agree with them as 'archaic', without presenting one shred of evidence that substantiates this assertion.

I'll start with the first event. Following an overheard conversation in my workplace, I was accused of 'contravening equalities legislation'. This was because I voiced concerns to a colleague about, firstly, the adequacy of assessment of risk that had been carried out in relation to the proposal that 'self-identification' should become the only criterion for biological males to be legally considered females and, secondly, the wisdom of the guidance provided to schools by Education Scotland. Its website suggests that 'affirmation' rather than 'watchful waiting' should be the response to children whose preferences do not equate with the roles traditionally associated with their biological sex, when research and longitudinal data indicates otherwise.

The workplace in question was a charitable organisation where I had worked for 10 years. I previously had worked in public services with decades of experience in children's social care and education. Questions of equalities and rights were matters of which I had long and well-respected experience in Scotland, the UK and Europe. My personal commitment to human rights and to eradicating inequality has also been unwavering throughout my life. It was, therefore, a real body blow to be so unjustly accused and my health and wellbeing were seriously affected.

In essence, I was given an ultimatum. Either I left my post voluntarily, or action would be taken against me that, I was left in no doubt, would be seeking to dismiss me. The legal advice I had suggested that the case against me was flimsy at best – indeed I was advised that, had there been an adequate case to dismiss me, there would have been no need to offer any alternative. It was also pointed out to me that the disciplinary and appeal process would be protracted and stressful, and that 'victory' would mean I had to return to a workplace where I felt threatened and isolated and where, I am sure, there would have been continued attempts to get rid of me. This would probably have resulted in irretrievable compromise to my health and welfare. Clearly, therefore, I was in a 'lose/lose' situation.

Let me be clear – I have no wish to stick my head above the parapet and have done so very reluctantly. I have, however, felt it necessary to do so as I know of many other women who fear the consequences of questioning policy and legislative positions that fly in the face of known evidence. I also am aware of others who have been put through kangaroo courts or subjected to abusive name-calling for legitimate questioning of what seems to have become orthodoxy without any significant supporting information. "

(Continued:
www.scottishreview.net/MMorrison476a.html )

I think she deserves a bloody medal for what she has done so far and for going public.

If you are reading this, Maggie

[OldCrone]

I think she deserves a bloody medal for what she has done so far and for going public.

On reflection, and after reading your post, MoleSmokes, I agree with this. It's too easy to criticise people for not doing what we think we would do. In reality, given the current atmosphere, she has been very courageous.

I was treating this as a 'normal' disciplinary situation, when all parties, including the employer, would behave in a reasonable manner. But that's not what this is. This is a witch hunt.

[clitherow]

Great post MoleSmokes

[Floisme]

Thank you MoleSmokes. Charities are not happy, cuddly workplaces. They're in a perpetual dogfight to secure the next bit of funding and have to jump through ever smaller hoops to get it. They will be ruthless with staff who rock the boat.

[Floisme]

Why are all these so called charities in thrall?
Because it's the only way they can survive. They are not nice places to work and that poor woman has all my sympathy.