Choreographer Rosie Kay forced to resign from her own company

Nicely put, @foxgoosefinch.

Right - and Rosie was not the lecturer but their boss, so these are not students in loco parentis but adults - if you start calling your boss a terf and a bigot, you should be protected from your boss responding to that with what sounds like engagement and discussion of what that implies?

In your fantasy world, Catherina.

If I went about calling my boss an anti-Semite or whatever in his own home, I imagine it would be considered generally ridiculous of me to then claim I felt “unsafe” if he wanted to explain what his actual views were on Israel and Palestine in response.

On another note, the story about the locked hospital cupboard is insane. How are these people going to manage in their jobs? How are they going to perform in a workplace context if they can’t react like adult individuals?

Don't start a debate for which you're not prepared to hear opposing opinions.

They didn't start a debate. They were asked their preferred pronouns when they signed their contracts. I ticked "female" when I signed my contract. This doesn't mean I am ready to discuss my bits with my boss.

Good point NecessaryScene.

When you're proselytising for a sex-denying religion, of course those pointing out your errors are going to discuss sex. If you're not prepared to discuss sex, maybe don't go into the public sex denial business.

Similarly, if you don't want to hear about the world being round, because you think that's aggressive and offensive, don't start telling everyone the world is flat, and it won't happen.

Don't start a debate for which you're not prepared to hear opposing opinions.

What were you supposed to say? Argh.

Well I suppose the professional reply - which I will give if I'm ever asked again - is that it's hospital policy and if I'm feeling keen direct them to the relevant policy.

My mistake was in thinking the question to be rather a foolish one that didn't merit a serious reply. Perhaps I was a bit facetious.
Literal violence obviously.

Needless to say, by the time their manager, my manager and the departmental head had been involved it took a grovelling apology and my own manager's people skills to de-escalate things.

Since we’re not Victorians or members of a weird religion that deems all mention of genitals taboo, I would say it depends on the context.

Fair enough. The context has been given by the dancers in the Medium post. They perceived this as aggressive and objectifying. Some here seem to think that students just need to put up with that?

That is a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened.

Not according to the medium post of the dancers...

@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"?

Lots of unacceptable contexts, bearing in mind the various power relations involved. Some acceptable ones, particularly where the discussion is rhetorical or the matter has been raised by the person in the less powerful position.

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 can’t post the Reddit link or the archive link so it might seem like a pointless post, but I made it anyway in case the article is legally actionable, in which case the Reddit discussion might constitute evidence of its misleadingness.

I tried to post a Reddit link but it got autodeleted. Pink News has written about this and Redditors have interpreted the Pink News headline in the following way:

If any teacher is asking to see a pupil's privates, that's a massive red flag and a good reason to not turn up to the next class.

I don’t think the Redditor’s interpretation is unreasonable based on the PN headline. Both Reddit link and PN link are archived.

Anyway I took it as a warning, I keep conversation bland when among the young ones.

Why does anyone keep anything in a locked cupboard? Why does anyone lock their houses? Why does anyone do anything or go anywhere or even breathe?

AARRGGHHHHH.

www.reddit.com/r/GenderCynical/comments/rej4fp/terfs_continue_to_be_obsessed_with_genitals_as/

Just wanted to drop this link here in case it’s ever needed for a libel case against Pink News.

The PN article about Rosie Kay is linked on that Reddit post. Here is how one of the commenters at the link understood the article:

If any teacher is asking to see a pupil's privates, that's a massive red flag and a good reason to not turn up to the next class.

Yes, really. And I can get how they arrived at that understanding based on the PN headline. (The Redditors also call her a dance teacher not a choreographer, which is trivial compared to the other thing, but it is part of a very noticeable pattern of TRAs downplaying the status and skills of women who disagree with them.)

PN link and Reddit link are archived on archive.is. I understand we can’t post those links here?

So Rosie's comments to the dancers were (according to the dancers) micro agressions.

I wonder what the term for their retaliation is? A macro aggression? The way they tapped into the general structural oppression of women by going behind Rosie's back and leveraging the power to push Rosie out? How very gender binary of them.

Can't believe they've rebranded hospitality as a power imbalance. Why would anyone choose to be around these horrible individuals?

Anyway I took it as a warning, I keep conversation bland when among the young ones.

That story is doing my head in even thinking about it. You can hardly keep the conversation any blander than factually and neutrally answering a question you were directly asked. What were you supposed to say? Argh.

I’d say this also extends to denying that children are a meaningful social class, with different needs and vulnerabilities than adults have got.

I meant this as a view of the TRA lobby in general or of that political genderist worldview in general because of the policies that they advocate for in response to gender distress around children. I don’t attribute any view on children, to any individual person involved here in this specific incident, I don’t have any special insight to know what they think.

It's not normal to expect people to pussyfoot around an ideology that they absolutely think is one hundred percent detrimental to them, not to mention contrary to reality itself

^What Datun said. Why should women be expected to collude in their own oppression?

Totally different issue but I crossed paths with a new intake of graduates and was lucky to escape with a chat with my manager without further escalation.

When showing them around the department someone asked why certain items were kept in a locked cupboard. I replied "To stop people taking them". There was some brief chatter about the desirability of the items and I doubled down that they are kept in a locked cupboard throughout the hospital. I'm not talking controlled drugs btw.

Anyway they complained that I had made them feel "unsafe" "unwelcome" in their new job, that people might think them dishonest and so on.

It's like they all read from the same hymn sheet, with their talk of being unsafe etc.

Apart from anything else, they had done clinical placements at the hospital. They must realise a lot of things are kept in locked cupboards? From CD's, to loo roll to our lockers where we keep our possessions. Surely the reason for keeping all these items under lock and key is to stop people taking them? As well as some items that are restricted for safety reasons.

Anyway I took it as a warning, I keep conversation bland when among the young ones.

I realised the other day that "denying I exist" is simply the projection of their own way of thinking by an ideology that is entirely predicated on denying that female people exist as a meaningful social class

Excellent point Blibby I hadn’t looked at it that way. Pure projection. I’d say this also extends to denying that children are a meaningful social class, with different needs and vulnerabilities than adults have got.

Why would Rosie be wrong for doing that but they are right to do it?

Because they are bullies and cowards.

I’m confused why the offended people complained that they’d been in some way outed or exposed or harmed by Rosie going public? Did they not give their own names out publicly themselves? She didn’t do that.
BBC doesn’t report if the open letter is anonymous or not, but presumably not anon, as they don’t say the authors’ names were withheld:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59584638

Rosie ‘went public’ so after being forced to make a resignation from her own dance company, over some anti-sexist ideas that she’d verbaliised to employees and which they didn’t agree with. But Rosie didn’t name anyone else talking about it, which was the right thing to do.

The BBC report that the offended people have written a public open letter about their upset at Rosie going public about her own experience (…red flag…. WHY SHOULDN’T SHE.? THERE’S A SERIOUS PUBLIC INTEREST FOR ALL WOMEN IN THIS) and some of the offended people have given named identifiable quotes to the BBC setting out how they feel.

So what has happened for them to complain of since the events at the party in question? They (plural they) have given their side of the story which is totally legitimate for them to do (and named her publicly) after Rosie had given her side publicly, (not naming them).
Why would Rosie be wrong for doing that but they are right to do it?