Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Woman loses job raising concerns about risk assessments and self id

59 replies

RunningWild12 · 17/04/2019 21:01

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

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Bowlofbabelfish · 24/04/2019 09:04

Thanks trousering. that’s pretty much what I did. In the weekly meeting I popped in a quick thanks to ‘bob’ (not real name) for his dedicated work in other time zones and hoped he wasn’t too tired, blah blah, next agenda point.

Social media is a minefield. Many jobs (my own included) have social media policies which are really unclear. There’s the usual not bringing into disrepute thing, which is fair and reasonable - I wouldn’t be vocally Anti Widget when working for the Widget Company. But then where do we excercise our personal opinions? As private individuals? When we are in a position where expressing and opinion that an existing law should be reviewed for impacts on protected groups gets you threatened with telling your employer you’re a transphobe, something is wrong. Any expression of an opinion is by definition public. When we have so few social media outlets controlling platforms where is it appropriate and inappropriate to express an opinion?

It’s something I feel needs more clarification because at the moment it’s rather like the hate crime laws - anything anyone feels is bad can be made to be bad.

I remember your posts on the legal issue now. An excellent statement.

MoleSmokes · 21/04/2019 21:49

I trust that anyone reading this thread, including "Maggie", will see that

  • the majority of people responding are supportive, reasonable and compassionate
  • that there are women in positions of influence, like @Trousering, who are both willing and able to fight "regulatory capture" and are determined not to back down.

I hope the motion to the University and College Union goes well. The statement above is missing a call to action, as in "We call on the UCU to . . . ", which I appreciate might be a tactical omission at this stage.

Much as I am tactically omitting to respond to negative assumptions about my purpose in posting as I did in support of "Maggie" - so any TRA lurkers who are licking their lips in hope of seeing some feminist fireworks, slink off home, nothing to see here!

DarkAtEndOfTunnel · 19/04/2019 23:52

Not that it was me who fought the feminist fights the first time round, just feeling sorry for myself there for a moment Smile.

DarkAtEndOfTunnel · 19/04/2019 23:51

Not that it was me who fought the feminist fights the first time round, just feeling sorry for myself there for a moment Smile.

DarkAtEndOfTunnel · 19/04/2019 23:49

What we could really do with... is something like a Women's Equality Party to speak for us, and a network of Women's groups everywhere to seek support from in these cases.

"Don't get mad: get organised"

God I'm so tired of having to fight the same fights over and over again, having to do it elsewhere in rl at the moment.

Floisme · 19/04/2019 16:05

I thank Trousering for what she does. I thank Maggie for what she did and I thank Mole and all the other posters who spoke up for Maggie.

I thank everyone who puts their head over the parapet and I’m not going to criticise someone if they subsequently feel they have to take cover.

Trousering · 19/04/2019 14:16

www.facebook.com/494295627591295/posts/823422158011972/

Shared by A Woman's Place:

“We will be taking a motion supporting academic freedom to discuss sex and gender to the 2019 University and College Union (UCU) congress next month. While the union has a stated position in favour of academic freedom in general terms, it has shied away from making any statement on the harassment of feminist academics.
Academics who do not adhere to a particular line on gender and transgender issues have suffered intimidation by trans activists, including students and colleagues who seek to silence them.
These scholars have faced campaigns of blacklisting and smears, no platforming and professional disinvitations, organised efforts to get them fired, and rape and death threats. The level of hostility, hatred and often overtly misogynistic bullying faced by these scholars does not compare to anything we have seen in other debates within academia, even the most contentious.
The divide between trans activists and their opponents is a split within the left, rather than a left-right divide. Trade unionist women, led by A Woman’s Place UK, have led grass-roots calls for proper consultation with women regarding proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. They have consistently worked with trans women who share their concerns regarding, for example, same-sex exemptions in the Equality Act, women’s sports and child safeguarding, yet trans activists have attempted to shut down their meetings, using tactics such as bomb threats to venues.
Long-standing gay rights campaigners have demanded that Stonewall reconsider its approach to transgender policy and engage fully in debate on the issue. A recent Open University conference on prison reform was cancelled after being targeted by trans activists because the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies opposed housing trans women with female prisoners.
The UCU has rightly called out threats to academic freedom posed by government interference, but it has not commented on the silencing of dissent on this issue, which has grave potential to damage the wider progressive movement.
This is a difficult issue for the union because activists are divided on the substantive issues. However, the concept of academic freedom is meaningless if it does not extend to those with whom one disagrees. The UCU’s official statement on academic freedom recognises that the issue is bound up with broader civil liberties and human rights, and that academics must be free to express their opinions on matters of public interest, which may touch upon controversial or sensitive topics. This statement is hollow if not applied consistently.
As trade unionists, political activists and critical scholars, we are as equally motivated by a concern for social justice as our critics, though we see the issues differently. We recognise the discrimination faced by trans people and the importance of defending their human rights.
It is a sound principle of both political and academic work that we should listen to the voices of people from marginalised groups when discussing issues that affect them. The language used to define sex and gender, and the implications of these definitions for issues of public policy, including healthcare, education and child safeguarding, affects us all.
It is thus misleading to construe disagreements on these issues as a debate between “feminists” and “trans people”. Indeed, trans people who have asserted that “gender identity” does not supersede biological sex and should not replace sex as a protected characteristic have also faced bullying by activists. A culture of silencing is dangerous and counterproductive, particularly for vulnerable groups. This has been exposed most sharply by recent resignations from the Tavistock Gender Identity Clinic of doctors concerned about the hormonal and surgical procedures offered to children.
In the current climate, even articulating any of the following points as a basis for discussion can lead to accusations of transphobia, and to bullying and harassment: Humans have two sexes, male and female; females are the sex that produce large immobile gametes called ova; males are the sex that produce small mobile gametes called sperm; women are adult human females; women do not have penises; homosexuality is same-sex attraction; a transwoman who transitions as an adult has not always been female.
At a time when the recent gains of the feminist movement and the gay rights movement are under attack by the forces of the far right, it is vital to distinguish between those who seek to uphold the rights of all groups who continue to suffer from patriarchal and racist oppression, and those who uphold an explicitly sexist and racist ideology.
Authoritarian anti-intellectualism on the far right is unlikely to be defeated by its mirror image on the left, and we believe that defending academic freedom, while opposing all forms of authoritarian politics, is a basic function of our union.
Alice Sullivan, Judith Suissa, and Lesley Gourlay are professors at the Institute of Education at UCL and Holly Smith is a lecturer at the Institute of Education at UCL.”

vicviking · 19/04/2019 14:03

TRAs want us to be afraid but there really are no grounds for dismissing people for politely expressing gender critical views.

vicviking · 19/04/2019 14:02

Thank you trousering. I think you are absolutely right.

Trousering · 19/04/2019 13:55

Bowl. My advice in that case would be to be as open as possible as to what was going on.

I would advise notifying the entire department from where the complaint originated that due to support commitments in different time zones normal service may have been slightly restricted but is now back to the usual high standard. With your thanks and the appreciation for the other depts bosses understanding.

It's all out in the open then and the conversation has been changed.

Trousering · 19/04/2019 13:42

I have posted on another thread about my current ongoing work with a London Russell Group University. I have consulted with the uni's external QC and Equality specialist solicitors about Stonewall led policies which misprepresent the equality act in particular the invitation to men cross dressing for erotic purposes to use sex segregated facilities.
The legal team were shocked to hear this was happening and were quite clear the law has to be followed, and agreed that men should not be entitled to come to work cross dressing for erotic purposes and that women are being expected to tolerate sexual harassment as a result.

I've now raised this with my male counterparts in HR, both older gay men by the way, who are also appalled. The D&I team are now changing policies back to the legal protected characteristics. There has been no argument against this.

I'm now taking on addressing the lack of Equality Analysis of the training and the training itself with the D&I team.

I am perfectly entitled to say I don't celebrate this account posted anonymously, the facts in there were on her side, she left for her own emotional reasons.

I do not condone posts here which deliberately deter women from standing by their words and expecting due process to apply to them.

What is the purpose of posts such as Molesmokes other than to frighten and intimidate? To ensure more women feel standing by their words is emotionally beyond them?

howonearthdidwegethere · 19/04/2019 13:31

We can't possibly know the detail of her personal circumstances other than what she alludes to in the article. Not everyone has the mental and financial resources to take on their employer.

And, as someone has said upthread, she HAS done something. She has written this article. And who knows: she may well have done other things behind the scenes as well.

Sending you love and solidarity, if you are reading this, Maggie.

Flowers
Ereshkigal · 19/04/2019 13:25

What are you doing in your workplace to make sure women's voices are heard on this issue, Trousering?

She's done a lot. I know her IRL.

Bowlofbabelfish · 19/04/2019 13:17

trousering a having been on the receiving end of a threat this week, this resonates with me. Can I ask, as HR:

(Very roughly) what sort of industry are you in?
How would you manage a woman in your company’s employ being reported like this?

I’m not HR, but I have had to deal with malicious reporting about one of my team. I had a complaint that he was ‘slacking off’ and leaving early. He was leaving early, because he was dealing with the Australian arm that week and was up in the wee small hours calling them, so I knew it was malicious. The venom behind it really made me uneasy - it was quite clear that the people were out to get him.

I think there is a significant chilling effect from cases like this. Women are becoming afraid to speak out. Having seen the reaction when I’ve said a couple of extremely calm and balanced things about women’s rights, I think I’d be afraid too, if I’m honest. I’m fairly sure that nothing I’ve ever said online is hateful, I have a gender critical boss, I work in a scientific industry that shows no sign of wokeness but still, the chill remains.

I think a few decent tribunals and rulings would be beneficial but I dont blame anyone for not wanting to go down that route

clitherow · 19/04/2019 13:06

I am not saying we are hopeless, I am saying that women need support along the lines of the Christian Legal Centre and even then it won't be easy. It really doesn't help to say that individual women are weak or are prone to losing their bottle.

OldCrone · 19/04/2019 13:05

What are you doing in your workplace to make sure women's voices are heard on this issue, Trousering?

Floisme · 19/04/2019 13:05

This is what working life is like for many women whether you approve or not. She did as much as she felt able to do I thank her for it.

Trousering · 19/04/2019 12:49

Again with the ludicrous dramatisation.
The legal advice she got was that there was no case for dismissal. That's not a system stacked against them. That's her own legal advisor saying that if they could have dismissed they wouldn't have asked her to go.

She chose to walk away anyway.

Don't describe this as a system stacked against her, this is ridiculous fear mongering and simply frightens other people. I live in the real world too thanks and have been paid for managing dismissals for 30 years, I have eight on the go right now.
This is fear mongering. This woman obviously lost her bottle, she was obviously fine talking about this to colleagues but when put on the spot she was too fearful. This thread is now all about insisting the only option is to be fearful, with long posts about how you have absolutely no employment rights whatsoever.

I don't call this feminism. This board descends into weeping and wailing about how hopeless we all are. Absolutely appalling attitude. Take it to the spa day page and get yourselves some ear candles or hot rocks to recover.

clitherow · 19/04/2019 12:37

Trousering I would imagine that many people would agree with you in principle, I know I do, but we don't live in principle, we live in the real world. The point is that women falling foul of this totalitarian, irrational ideology have no one to support them. The Christian social worker who was sacked at least has the free support of the Christian Legal Centre and, even then, who can imagine the stress that she will have to endure. The woman in this case has no such support. How can any of us put ourselves in the place of these women and assess how their mental and physical health would stand up to the kind of pounding that they will take from a system stacked against them? Support from a bunch of anonymous women on the internet won't help when they wake up in the middle of the night alone and frightened as the whole foundation upon which they have built their worlds is brought into question.

OldCrone · 19/04/2019 12:35

Trousering

I don't think anyone has said people shouldn't fight against this. But I don't think we should be too critical of people who, for whatever reasons, don't feel able to do that themselves.

This was turning into an attack on someone who has done something, but was criticised for not doing more. I'd like to think I'd have fought it, but I have no idea if I'd really feel able to do that if I was faced with that situation in real life.

We should be concentrating on formulating ways of fighting what she was up against, not criticising her for not doing it on her own. How can we support other women who find themselves in this position? What can we do about the issues she talks about?

Trousering · 19/04/2019 12:34

She did shut up at work. There was no case for dismissal. She was factually correct in what she had discussed at work. What she has actually done at that organisation is justify the complaints opinion that what she said has no substance as she wouldn't even stand by it herself. She's made it worse for anyone else at that employer to voice challenges to inaccurate policy.

She's now just complaining anonymously into a void about kangaroo courts when she hopped off long before any proper examination of the situation began. So yup, I'm not celebrating people that don't have the courage of their convictions and people here banging on about how corrupt and dishonest HR is in order to frighten people away from exercising their rights, well you are doing the genderists work for them.

Floisme · 19/04/2019 12:19

The woman concerned hasn't shut up. She has publicised what happened.

Trousering · 19/04/2019 12:10

Molesmokes Perhaps due to a lack of insight into how traumatic and extraordinarily long-winded Disciplinary Procedures can be?

Yup, thirty years in HR so no idea.

I find your posts extraordinary. You have basically set out in massive detail instructions to women to just run away and hide rather than standing by your own words. This whole thread has been turned into a dream for anyone in support of eroding women's rights as people pile in to say running away scared is to be celebrated and standing up for yourself is pointless /hopeless /don't bother just run along now dear, have some flowers.

It's like the thread is being brigaded by trans activists coning women into shutting up. Other than an anonymous post about how they quit the moment someone said boo.

clitherow · 19/04/2019 11:15

And there is no way in hell that I would trust my trade union to support anyone over this. They would probably hand you over to the lynch mob and sell tickets for the hanging.

Absoblinkinglutely

OllyBJolly · 19/04/2019 11:06

Old Crone . Christina McKelvie is Equalities Minister.

Christina McKelvie: Applicants To the Equally Safe Violence Against Women And Girls Fund are required to provide their LBTI Inclusion Plan (or An GBTI Plan for organisations providing direct support to men) as part of their application. Applicants Without these plans in place are not considered

Swipe left for the next trending thread