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

Yet you’ve only cited left wing sources of that threat, despite evidence that antisemitism doesn’t neatly fit into your preferred framework of Left=bad. I find your refusal to
acknowkedge that highly suspect.

Because it’s not comfortable for people to be forced to lie.

I've only read summaries of CRT, and I disagree with some significant elements of it, eg I don't think it fails to acknowledge how class and economic distribution interact and impact social and economic relations.

I agree with it in so far as I believe that Christianity and colonialism* were responsible for a lot of bad shit though, but I think most religions have the potential for oppressing those who aren't in the same "club".

*I don't for a minute lay this all at Britain's door, either, most of Western Europe was at it for a few centuries, and Russia wouldn't be half as big as it is if the Czars hadn't been up for a bit of oppression and expansionism.

You didnt ask me but I will answer. Well it does directly impact women - all women. It started at the pronouns (which 10 years ago I was a bit like 'does it really matter that much - isnt it a bit like calling someone Kat, when their name is Kathrine?). But it was and still is the thin edge of the wedge. What seemed a bit silly but harmless, really really wasnt. Very quickly it turned into 'well if im a she then I must be an actual woman, so now I need access to ALL your spaces, and words and erase 'woman' .' So yeh that directly affects me and all women. So I very much care a great deal.

Ridiculous assumption, given that I am a strong advocate for safety of Jews. My point has been maintained from the start - that this thread is biased.

Thanks for the reminder 🙄

IIt doesn’t prove your point, so I can only assume you’re using it as an opportunity to say offensive things to me.

Unless it’s directly impacting you or others, why do you care?

I know those far right groups exist and I know their history. I am talking about today in 2026 - 3 years since an infamous event in October 2023. That's not the far right who have been out on the streets. It wasn't the far specifically shouting put zios in the ground was it?

Legally you can absolutely call a man 'he' and refuse to buy into gender ideology completely, and declare yourself gender critical. The law would be on your side. However, as we see, your employer could sack you and you would then have to go through the courts. You would win, but who on earth wants that faff in their lives? All the social workers I know had to crowdfund and yes they won but it took a year or two and they couldn't work in that time. And the reality is they now have a black mark over them. I wouldn't want to live that way. So I would take the middle line and avoid all pronouns and talk of GC, but I would absolutely not indulge the nonsense. To me, the pronoun thing is the thin edge of the wedge.

Horrific

Yes and I’d make sure I had all my ducks in a row if I got called into HR.

The policy was indeed if a man declared himself to be a woman everyone else had to play along. Which was of course hugely conflicting and created a great deal of problems to navigate for women using the service.
The dilemma then was whether to walk away from the service altogether, abandoning the women it was aimed at, or go along with it and find work arounds that protected them and made sure they didn't lose out.
Yup. Good Times.

Same. I would avoid pronouns or use “they”. This should be legally fine, you may not be permitted to “misgender” as it could amount to harassment, but equally forcing you to use language which is in conflict with your own legally held protected belief could also amount to harassment

I expect the context would be a man declaring himself to be a woman and expecting everyone else to play along.

So presumably the man declaring that falsehood would have been fine.

But a woman calling it out may not have been?

What a time to be alive, hmm?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of exercising the right to free speech.

It highly likely would have been in my employment when the trans inclusion policy arrived, provided there were clear links to the organisation with the person posting.
I imagine context may have come into play, if it was part of a conversation and the comment was posted as part of a wider 'respectful' discussion maybe not. But just to post that sentence apropos of nothing would probably have been seen as deliberately provocative and against the service aim to appear welcoming to trans people.
Much hinges on policies. We all knew what was expected in terms of the inclusivity policy and we all knew that we shouldn't link ourselves to our employer on SM if we intended on expressing political views.
If we breeched the policies that would have been on us, regardless of the rights or wrongs of our views.

Have you actually read the tenants of critical race theory?
It explicitly states "All whites are racist" it lays all the ills of the world on Christianity and British colonialism so yes anti white, christaphobic and anti uk

I've been involved in a small way in left politics and anti-racism since the 1970s, and have never heard any "anti uk, anti white and christaphobic" views expressed. Being opposed to racism is not in any sense anti-white, all the groups I have been involved with have been predominantly white, even when I lived in a racially mixed area of South London.

As for "christaphobic", many of my fellow participants have been practicing, church-going Christians, including a Methodist lay preacher, who find tolerance and acceptance of others' faith, sexual orientation or gender status entirely consistent with their Christian faith.

I wouldn’t call a hypothetical trans identified male colleague “he” or “she” in the workplace, I would go out of my way to avoid pronouns at all. No doubt he’d probably take offence to that, as he’d know I was doing it because I didn’t see him as a woman, but legally I believe I’m on strong ground.

A lot of people on here seem to think they need to slavishly follow their employers policies. Not quite the case. The employers policies also need to comply with the law. A lot don’t

I am left wing, and I don’t think people should lose their jobs for being right wing or being anti immigration. I do think they should for racism, and discrimination.

I suppose it is what is being said, and the job they are in. If someone said ‘I am Opposed to immigration and fear it’s having a negative impact on the country’ then fine. If someone said ‘I hate immigrants and Muslims and wish their boats would overturn’ then I think that warrants a different response.

I suppose it depends where you think the performative misgendering occurs. I personally think a male asking someone to use female pronouns is performative. It’s my choice as to what language I think appropriate to use depending on the persons sex, which is almost always obvious. I don’t think correctly sexing someone is performative

What a bizarre comment! Have you heard about WW2?

Regardless of the law, performative misgendering is just tedious. Why deliberately call someone something they’ve asked you not to, if not legally or clinically necessary? Like when people insist on Miss for unmarried women, despite Ms being well established and preferred by many. Obviously should t be a sackable offence but I’d view a colleague dimly for being such a fucking bore.

Freedom of speech doesn’t provide blanket immunity and
its really not as straightforward as you imply OP.

Racism isn’t acceptable in any form but being concerned about levels of illegal immigration in a small community isn’t the same thing at all.

Additionally, being vocally unsupportive about trans identifying people is entirely reasonable, if you acknowledge that people can’t change sex and view support as affirming their delusions. 🤷🏻‍♀️