AIBU to think public racist / anti immigrant / anti trans posts can justify dismissal?

Yes lovey that’s exactly what I said I would do from the start, isn’t it? Would you like me to bump the post?

They’re on very dodgy ground mandating pronouns in signatures I think. Firstly not everyone “trans” wants to come out of the closet, and secondly it could be seen as harassment of people with gender critical beliefs.

That’s it - I knew you could do it!

“Linda is male and has no cervix, therefore Linda has no need of a cervical smear. However Linda has a penis, testicles and a prostate so will need to be invited to male screening appointments”

I've no idea!

The organisation serves an area that includes a city with a bigger than average LGBT community and has a fair few trans/NB staff, so it could do. You'd get a bollocking if you misgendered someone, if they reported it. I've never heard of anyone getting reported for it though.

It could be a minefield though. There were a couple of gender-fluid people, and I just referred to them as "they" for fear of getting it wrong. It was a relief when we were all told to put our pronouns in our email sigs.

“Linda is male, therefore Linda is not eligible for our female only group.”

much clearer

I don’t find it hard because I’m never going to call a man a woman. Whatever your thoughts on the matter.

You can find it however you wish, I have never found it difficult to day ‘Linda is a trans woman, therefore she is not eligible for our female only group’. Linda is a trans women, therefore she does not need a cervical smear. Larry is a trans man, he would like to join our female only group.’

It’s easy to say. You might find it hard, and I accept there are many timid voices who do, but don’t assume we all do.

This.

Good for you, I do think it matters.

It makes me complicit in propping up an ideology which I find to be harmful. It’s coercive and oppressive towards me to be forced to do so. So no, it’s not the same.

Inclusivity without thought often results in unanticipated consequences! I definitely see that rush to be inclusive no matter what that means for anyone. I think that’s also a consequence of the funding situation over the last 15 years, where funders are either looking to fund ‘inclusive’ (that by definition often don’t meet the differing needs of specific groups) and services restructure or reframe accordingly. And social media has amplified it, so organisations are afraid of the reputational
impact because they are so dependent on the financial landscape.

This is deliberately disingenuous. Of course it's harder to argue why 'she' shouldn't have access to women's spaces, rather than 'he'. Denying that is just silly.

And there is nothing kind about lying. In fact I think it's much worse to encourage a trans identifying man by calling him 'she' and then turn round later and say he has no rights to women's spaces. Much better to be honest and clear from the start.

I haven’t found it hard to advocate for single sex spaces whilst also treating people kindly though. Being called She is not sufficient to access female only spaces, any more than calling myself Mrs gives me access to legal benefits of marriage if I’m not married. They are terms that describe something tangible and also insufficient to access that tangible reality. I just don’t think it matters. And if someone refuses, I don’t think it matters either, I just think it’s a bit pointless.

All the lies you reference here are fundamentally subjective judgements.

Pretending a man is a woman is not. It's a contradiction of an objective fact.

And of course it's detrimental for women. You make it much harder for women to fight for their single sex spaces and services when you make it necessary for them to argue why 'she' has no rights to such spaces.

Protecting women's rights is dependent on us being able to use clear, unambiguous language. Which is exactly why the TRAs have put so much effort into dismantling this language.

I remember seeing a you tube video with an American woman and her husband on a flight and she was seated next to a Maga supporter. She tried to get him seated elsewhere because she wasn't happy. Fortunately, the cabin crew saw sense and relayed the incident to the pilot. She and her husband were removed from the aircraft. Her arrogance went against her that day.

If you identify yourself as an employee or owner at X business or school.or public office, then you need to refrain from any inflammatory or political or sectarian opinions. The idea is to avoid implicating your place of employment in your views.

As a private individual, you are allowed in most developed states to express any opinion you hold. However, if you're well known in your professional capacity in any given community, or if your role brings you into contact woth people you are criticising, and have an inkling that your opinions might be offensive, you should post anonymously or reconsider posting altogether. This is especially true of public service employees, who should be even handed and seen to be even handed in the commission of their duties.

I live in the US, and during a referendum on workers' rights a few years ago a local tradesman / owner of his own business appeared in ads opposing the proposition. He had every right to have the opinion he held, but his surprise when he lost customers was quite funny to see. I have personally dropped one particular plumber from my list of trades to call because his van is festooned with trump stickers.

I think the operative words you appear to have missed are “in the last 3 years”. Both far left and far right have serious antisemitism issues - in the last 3 years. Holocaust denial is sadly a very real issue amongst some pro-Palestinian people. The operative words you being “some”. Not all.

I think two things led to self ID being enough in my service. First the decision to be trans inclusive. Second the principle of allowing women to disclose and share as they felt safe to do so, which meant avoiding questioning and screening for entry to the service. If a woman presented needing support, she was taken at face value.
So when an obvious male presented as a woman, there was no process to exclude him. To introduce one for a 'trans woman' would be treating the trans person differently.
In truth, we didn't know how to deal with it. As on one hand the high ups insisted anyone who presents here as a woman is a woman. While on the other we had staff members who had to answer a learning disabled woman asking "Why is that lady a man?" Plus numerous other examples of women survivors of MVAWG made uncomfortable, intimidated in a supposedly women only safe space.

Can you provide a link to where CRT says that? I’ve read a lot of it - a long time ago - and my understanding is it’s not about individuals at all, but about how structures perpetuate racial hierarchies and benefit some groups and disadvantage others.

That fortunately wasn’t the case in my service, though I know it happened a lot. I think maybe we were fortunate enough to have sufficient funding to be able to provide mixed and sex-specific services, and I know that wasn’t always possible. It’s surprising how many women’s services were so quick to buy into the idea that self-declared sex is enough, and how many women accepted without question. But I have to say the trans women I’ve known in my lifetime have never claimed to have changed sex, even though all have been through surgery so my views are shaped more by those interactions. I wouldn’t presume to call them he or a male name because it wouldn’t make sense. But neither do they pretend to have periods.

I think I’d rather be rude than repeat anti-Semitic rallying cries. But that’s just me.

Islam has a reasonable amount of diversity within it, and I think the use of examples like the practice of FGM and treating schizophrenia as demonic possession are extreme.

Christian communities in parts of West Africa practice FGM too, but I have no idea what their attitude to mental illness is.

A friend once pointed out that Islam is around 600 years "younger" than Christianity, and that if we compared the more unpalatable Islamic practices to what Christians were up to 600 years ago, it probably wouldn't seem so bad. I'm sure there are flaws in his position, but he has a first in theology, so I wasn't really inclined to debate the point!

People like all the time to spare someone’s feelings - ‘how does this dress look’ ‘have I put on weight’. And at work ‘your performance has been acceptable’ ‘you’re a valued colleague’. If you refuse to use preferred pronouns, do you also refuse to call someone by the name they are called if iIt doesn’t suit you? And how about trans people who are not immediately identified by their sex? Nobody should be forced to lie but anyone who thinks they’re doing a service to women by refusing someone’s pronouns is mistaken.

Yes, I'm finding something suspicious as well. I don't need to justify my stance. I've nothing to hide or feel guilty of. You've been quite rude throughout the thread. That's your lot from me.