Choreographer Rosie Kay forced to resign from her own company

If you don't want the job, don't apply for it. It's fairly straight forward. It's a job, it is not a bloody therapy service.

Good grief. The stupidity in those screenshots is staggering.

It is called "whipping up a mob". You can't have a lynching without a mob!

There’s seemingly also significant pressure on other dancers to participate in the denunciation.

Sorry, thought I’d added screenshots.

Is it normal for performers' physicality and characteristics (including sex characteristics) to be bluntly discussed by those responsible for their training? Yes. Especially with reference to their likely castings - it does people absolutely no favours to let them have a false image of their physicality. Like it or not, performers are usually cast on both performance ability and their physicality.

According to this non binary dancer who’s been very vocal about the need for the dance world to denounce Rosie Kay, that’s a HUGE no-no.

So you all think it's normal if a lecturer/trainer invites students/trainees into their home and discussed their genitals and the students/trainees just need to "toughen up"?

You may have the very best of intentions.

But know that a squeamishness to name genitals - be it for your non-binary "theybie" or just because you're posh and have decided to tell your daughter her vulva is called a twinkleydink - is an absolute gift for those who would abuse.

Yes when sex based rights are being discussed, genitals might have to be mentioned. Mostly because gender idealogues insist on pretending the terms men /male/woman /female no longer mean what they used to mean!

Where is this squeamishness when we are called menstruators and cervix havers anyway? Make your mind up!!

Who knows? Really! I believe that two of the dancers described themselves as "trans non-binary" which is a contradiction in terms.

So you all think it's normal if a lecturer/trainer invites students/trainees into their home and discussed their genitals and the students/trainees just need to "toughen up"?

I think if I were making a point about something to do with, say, what I thought about wheelchair users' rights, and someone said "but you have working legs, right?" that would be a valid thing to say. Similarly if I were claiming to be non-binary not as a state of mind in a sexed body but as an actual statement that body sex does not exist for me and someone said "But you were born with a vulva not a penis or a third thing, right?" that would also be a valid thing to say given the context of the conversation.

It can't be ok to have someone able to demand a group acquiesce to a claim that everyone knows is false simply because it's too rude/indelicate/triggering to say the truth that exposes the falsehood.

So if someone pushes a false argument to a place where the only way to counter it is to say something that is true but generally considered impolite to mention, they will unfortunately sometimes find people who consider being rude is better than condoning a lie (or more charitably, a misapprehension), especially if they consider this falsehood to be harmful to people other than just the liar.

If a truth is too dreadful (or simply too socially unacceptable) to say, that unsayability becomes a cover for people with bad intentions. As the many women who put up with boundary-crossing behaviour from men because they feel pointing it out will be seen as "making an unwarranted fuss over nothing" can attest.

As an aside, and related to points on a recent thread, I find it very odd that the current shibboleths of so-called (but actually not) progressive politics include both trans identities "Shhhh shhhh must never mention the genitals, what sort of awful awful person wants to know about genitals anyway???!!!" and Sex Work is Work "Being a person who wants to pay to
use or look at other people's genitals is totally ok and only prudes have a problem with it!!!!"

Those are very good points. And I'd like to see Ms Non-Binary lift women the way that men do. I would be very surprised if she could.

@CatherinaJTV

So you all think it's normal if a lecturer/trainer invites students/trainees into their home and discussed their genitals and the students/trainees just need to "toughen up"?

Is it normal for performers' physicality and characteristics (including sex characteristics) to be bluntly discussed by those responsible for their training? Yes. Especially with reference to their likely castings - it does people absolutely no favours to let them have a false image of their physicality. Like it or not, performers are usually cast on both performance ability and their physicality.

Is it normal for performers to be told to toughen up? Yes. Because if they don't, they'll last about three years.

The pity of all this is that their training college seems to have utterly failed these students. Nobody seems to have spelt out to them that having a flaming row with their very first professional director is going to kill their careers.

I remember Fame, so I know it’s no picnic! Haha!

I also know singers, actors and dancers - it’s a tough job (well usually a side job alongside teaching, serving in restaurants, temping or busking). And there’s always the parts that go to lesser experienced or talented friends and family of directors. And critics can be brutal. You need a thick skin.

If they are not, they need to be. Both are precarious professions.

Aren’t dancers and actors always being told that they need to toughen up?

Just musing: I have booked a long-haul flight in first class for later this month. If I tell them that I am non-binary, will they give me two amenties bags?

It doesn't matter - whatever one says or does in apology, it's never enough.

Oh do give up. Address the central points.

She did what many tutors, lecturers and employers do. Especially when mentoring is part and parcel of the job.

Here the whole team was and the point of this gathering was to encourage team building. Yes! That! And rather than look outside themselves and re-orient themselves to the wider world they chose, well most of the, chose to retreat to their perma-astonished inner worlds.

How the hell else could anyone find the style of decor in a little boy's bedroom 'dangerous'?

What else would anyone read a written apology and say it was not enough because summink summink ?

Read it again... www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59584638

"I was not going out of my way to have Rosie Kay removed from the company, I wanted there to be proper acknowledgement of what had happened." came after "I am devastated by how the night went and how much it has affected you. It was never my intention to upset you, but I see now that I did so profoundly. I am truly sorry for this."

What more is required? Sack cloth? Ashes? Crawling through the streets of Old London Town?

I will also guess that all three abstainers are male dancers and hence no criticism directed towards them.

OK. So ignore the first line and read the rest! If you do you will see that I said itwaswork related, just not aChristmasparty

Or carry on nitpicking. Your choice!

If any one is nit picking it is you. Your comment about it not being a Christmas party is completely irrelevant and redundant if you accept it was work related; which was not actually clear from the rest of your post.

Hang on: six signatories, nine people involved. What are they going to to do to the three "disloyal" people who didn't join in the witch-hunt and work each other up into precipitate action which quite certainly took away all their immediate employment -- that show ain't going on without the person running it, so they are all out of a job?

I feel rather sorry for those three: they are being victimised for something they have not done, whichever way I look at it.