Another Labour councillor resigns over Cambridge City Council's transgender policies

Mr. Price has received a lot of support from the College and students, past and present. His job is safe.

Am so glad his principles and courage has been rewarded in this way

They better not have got him fired (or hounded him into resigning)

I’ve just seen an advert for a part-time porter at Clare College. Does anyone know what’s happening, if anything, about Kevin Price’s job?

I started another post which probably not the right thing to do but here - I wrote to Clare College HR dept

I have sent a card to the man - but have sent this email to Clare College HR Dept

to ( HR Dept)

Dear HR Dept.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not a student nor alumni of Clare College

However I find it ( and obviously know because widely publicised ) very dreadful that a man who has done nothing illegal and has stood up for women ( Women vs trans women ) - ( I do not believe he has said anything illegal ) could be under such duress from some students.

I hope and trust you will support this man appropriately

Maybe some sense from the real world might put things into perspective. And some of these ‘students’ really do think they are going to sail through into the world of grown ups and have people laying out the red carpets for them. I saw one twitter account where they seemed to think of themselves as a future journalist... ha ha ha.

Well I have written to him to support him. I suspect he is feeling a bit beleaguered & he may well not care - but still - I have written in support

The issue here is not employment law but is about clarification of the interpretation of single sex exemptions in facilities (which will apply to work places) At the moment the land grab of undermining exemptions is used to justify identity led workplace policy with the associated claim that objection is equivalent to harrasment.

The solution to this is Ann Sinnots case. If we can get correct guidance then exemptions can be applied at work as appropriate and the burden of intimidation of women by harrasment claims is nullified. Additional Non gendered space can be provided where no-one is experiencing inappropriate behaviour.

If that makes sense.

This is blatantly untue. The few unfair cases that are being challenged are not proof that dismissal will lead from any comment.

Thank you for this clarification.

www.varsity.co.uk/news/19916

It looks as though the LibDems have been using students to target Labour councillors in Cambridge for some time.

Ann Sinnott can probably tell us about the group of LibDem TRAs who were trying to influence local politics. I think they used to run the LibDem LBGT+ Twitter account.

The shape or form of anyone's gender reassignment has no bearing on the oft repeated assertion that saying anything about a broad range of issues that can be interpreted as you not believing can result in instant dismissal.

This is blatantly untue. The few unfair cases that are being challenged are not proof that dismissal will lead from any comment.

Remember the Duncan thread where he set off on his high horse to HR to try to get a bigot (normal person with normal views about sex being a relevant protected characteristic and that exemptions are important) into trouble?

There was no impact on the employee, as absolutely nothing wrong had happened. HR told her he had complained and that was the end of it.

According to the generalisations in Donkey's posts the only outcome anyone this woman should have experienced is instant dismissal. And yet that didn't happen.

Constantly quoting Maya's case which is fundamentally different to permanent employment rights as an exact read across is not actually making women more confident about understanding their rights, it does the absolute opposite. There's hundreds of women here saying they will be sacked for speaking and yet Donkey has only managed to mention 4 names, in circumstances non of which have the normal employment protection the majority of women who are now terrified into silence by the endless repetition of the inevitability of dismissal.

It's just not true.

KP sounds like a principled man. I agree with pp that the right benefits when left wingers like him are hounded and silenced.

Now in The Times too: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cambridge-row-over-transphobic-porter-kevin-price-8bb7px950?fbclid=IwAR0jU3MqxI1PmFFvu1CT75W1HjuW6C5zyDzpaQxdbqqmPocDnzP1mA04FXU

Comments are supportive of Kevin Price.

I particularly liked one comment that said:

"Earlier this year Cambridge University approved a statement on free speech principles. It's easily found online. It begins: "[The University] is fully committed to the right of freedom of speech as a fundamental aspect of University life; 2. [...] will not obstruct speech that is lawful..." This seems to have passed the Union of Clare Students by.

The College has an obligation, legal as well as moral, to protect its employee against bullying, and take action against those who seek to bully. It should put its foot down."

Seconding that.

Thank you DonkeySkin. Your posts always provoke so much thought.

In the Equality Act, I mean. "Sex" we would think is clear cut but legal opinions suggest it includes members of the opposite sex who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate.

But "gender reassignment" as a PC is extremely vague, and even though it was not originally intended to include non binary gender identities who aren't taking steps to permanently "reassign" their gender, a recent employment judgement has interpreted that these people are included and protected by it, even though the government acknowledged in 2015/16 that they were not.

Court cases are about the law on the statute books.

The definition of what constitutes gender reassignment is woolly, confusing and subject to the prevailing public mood. It's not clear cut in any way.

Article in Spiked: www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/27/the-extreme-entitlement-of-trans-activists/

"Cambridge students want to get a porter fired because he refused to say ‘trans women are women' "

It does no good to be in denial about this.

I give up. I am not socially compelled. Nor am I compelled at work in a senior level HR job in a central London Russell group university, where I've asked for policy changes, consulted with our QC, and explained policy conflicts to D and I staff and academics. No-one had the slightest problem with any of these conversations taking place.

According to your bulshit I should be unemployed and in prison by now.

It's bad enough TRAs writing bulshit about it but you, here, claiming we are legally compelled to believe is terrible.

We are socially compelled to believe (or pretend to believe) and yes, increasingly legally too, everywhere. Norway is about to pass a law making 'misgendering' a criminal offence punishable by up to three years in prison.

twitter.com/anyabike/status/1318946116608708609

This is not an outlier but entirely in line with the logic of gender ideology, as are the proposed Scottish Hate Crime laws. Transgender status does rest on a metaphysical claim (and is hence a belief) - that was not created by Maya's case, it is the basis of all laws that enable a person to falsify his or her legal sex, as well as all the policies allowing men into women's refuges, change rooms, prisons and sports, and of course the 'science' that has doctors sterilising children in the belief that they have the soul of the opposite sex trapped in their body. Questioning this metaphysical claim, even indirectly (by supporting JK Rowling) has led to the social shunning and firing of people like Gillian Philip and Jenny Lindsay.

It does no good to be in denial about this. Recognising what is happening and naming it is the first step: this issue is not about civil rights, but about elevating a metaphysical belief above material reality, and socially, economically and legally punishing anyone who challenges it.

You can shout that it isn't happening until you turn blue, but the rest of us can see what is in front of our faces.

It was Maya's choice to try to use her own belief as a defense, as it was the only tactic available to her because she wasn't an employee and there hadn't been a dismissal. You are now trying to look back from those judges comments and claim this is because "trans belief" was already a legal concept he was applying. You are talking nonsense.

I think you should shut up about Maya's case. It's bad enough TRAs writing bulshit about it but you, here, claiming we are legally compelled to believe is terrible.

You are not helping anyone.