Rachel Meade, Social Worker, being suspended for 'transphobic' Facebook postss

Mr Blobby's recent postings are a little crude to repeat.

Mr Blobby is never crude. Unless of course you have changed the meaning of the word crude to mean something entirely different.
It is best however to stick to the dictionary definitions of words, to enable easy communication.

Hope this helps.

I couldn't get the link to work. Thanks Whatiswrongwithmyknee, now I don't have to bother confirming my worst suspicions about the quality of the "evidence" offered in support of the gratuitous insults.

Fucking awesome X post...

This author is nothing short of an idiot.

I got that from the title but thanks for reading it and taking one for the team

I think the oeuvre of Blobby is possibly rather more suited to the TA line of argument.

Mr Blobby has concluded that the social worker was acting correctly, and that she hasn't broken any of the required standards.

Furthermore, the social worker has a duty to speak out where there is a clear breach of safeguarding.

Mr Blobby concludes that social work England have not followed their own guidelines, and the social worker certainly has a case against them.

Mr Blobby hopes that she wins, and notes that she has considerable backing from many other social work professionals in this case.

Hope this helps.

[quote Wreath21]Though this is also an interesting article about why the gender-critical types are so obsessed with their own [[https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2022/01/12/re-centring-white-victimhood-in-the-age-of-black-lives-matter-a-terf-project/?fbclid=IwAR285gZ3_RX7i2EXp9qvRm60drkUquKb2q0YSmpVstYTW3ZTSAckSzT2AMo]][/quote]
This author is nothing short of an idiot.

"More specifically, I explore the function of so-called ‘gender critical’ feminism as a reactionary response to anti-racist and decolonial campaigns which aims to both reclaim the centrality of white women as the ultimate victim in public debates, and to divert attention from calls to recognise and address the role of feminist movements in upholding systems of white supremacy and imperialism worldwide."

The concept of the gender binary is built on racist assumptions about white middle-class stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. The societal expectations which have been forced on women of colour, where these are distinct from those forced on white women, are ignored. Trans ideology is inherently racist.

One of the core arguments of so-called ‘gender critical’ ideology is that trans women cannot be fully ‘accepted’ as women because their experience of womanhood is not identical to that of cis women and trans women can therefore not fully comprehend or empathise with the supposedly universal subordination of women. This argument rests on the fiction of a single female experience, a fiction which has routinely silenced and side-lined women who experience racism, colonial domination and other forms of oppression that cannot be singularly attributed to their gender

No, it really doesn't. No woman on this planet is suggesting that all women have the same experiences. They are in fact saying the exact opposite in many cases - i.e. that the only thing that binds women together is their biology, the impact of that (which is somewhat similar in many women) and the way society treats us because of our biology - an experience which can never be shared by someone who does not, or is thought not, to menstruate and potentially get pregnant.

is argument obviously denies the complexity of trans women’s experiences with a form of privilege that could only be accessed by denying a fundamental part of their identity. It also, however, blatantly singles out one form of privilege as unacceptable, while happily glossing over all other forms of power and domination that are at play in any group of women, such as those based on racial, class, ableist and heteronormative privilege.

It really doesn't, what a stupid thing to say. We are fully aware that female only spaces suffer from other forms of power and domination. Despite this authors patronising tone, women are not numptys. The fact that there are many other isms at play does not negate the need for women only spaces. However, if it did, this would be an argument for open spaces for all and no protected space for anyone whatsoever as clearly every single person who is experiencing discrimination is also able to discriminate on other grounds.

Such a pile of shit I could not continue reading. I guess this is what happens when you spend too long gazing at your own navel

It's clear that the misrepresentation of data rgarding

I haven’t had time to rtft so this has maybe been discussed but as a social worker I am so delighted by this case. It is clear in sw that views expressed privately can be sanctionable, and I think rightly so. I remember a case of a sw denouncing gay marriage on his private page and it was debated as he came from a culture where gay marriage remains criminal, but still this was assessed as a behaviour/view which was incompatible with his role in this country. I am careful about my GC views at work but I believe the time will come where it will be safer to be more open. I work with infants so I haven’t worked with many families where children are labelled trans so haven’t felt compelled to advocate for them in that sense, but I feel desperate to advocate about the safeguarding issues more widely in my organisation and speak up to challenge those in the profession. Thank you Rachel if you read this and I hope to be as brave as you.

And thanks for that article, though you're making an awfully large and rather racist assumption about posters' ethnicity. Quite a bigoted assumption, in fact..

Oops, I left out a space, I do so apologise, Wreath...

Thanks for bumping,Wreath21. Reminded me to go and do some gardening, so that's good, isn't it?

Though this is also an interesting article about why the gender-critical types are so obsessed with their own [[https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2022/01/12/re-centring-white-victimhood-in-the-age-of-black-lives-matter-a-terf-project/?fbclid=IwAR285gZ3_RX7i2EXp9qvRm60drkUquKb2q0YSmpVstYTW3ZTSAckSzT2AMo]]

To be clear, I was speaking generally when I referred to 'bigots and wingnuts'. The 'WAA I am being SILENCED (in several national newspapers, various radio shows, podcasts and quite a few television shows as well' position is also popular with the likes of Lawrence Fox and Tommy Robinson, of course.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee

and they will say lessons will be learned, but they never are.

Done a bit of gardening

As in - hysteria which makes people deny science and think that the rights of one small group of people are all that matter.

*So people who support trans ideology need to shut the fuck up when talking to women? I've never seen anyone ruder than a trans supporter TBH and would welcome them being penalised for sending death and rape threats and talking about women as if our bodies are commodities. They are demanding the right to be rude according to their perspective with impunity.

More ridiculous nonsense demanding that women do the 'being nice' and not talk to others the way they are spoken to.*

But we are not allowed to be protected in law, hating on women is perfectly legal no matter how much we get murdered and beaten etc, they refuse to make misogyny a hate crime because they are misogynists themselves and they know it.

Wreath21 is a perfect case study of a bigot who believes so much in their ideology that they feel justified in hating anyone who does not subscribe to it.

Do you know what, in a few years time people are going to be looking back on the way that women like Rachel Meade and Maya Forstater have been treated and absolutely cringe.

When society lost its mind.

According to SWE case examiner webpage Rachel Meade would have had to have accepted that her fitness to practice was impaired and have accepted the warning. If she had not accepted it her case would have been sent to a full hearing. I guess it would be tempting to accept a warning to avoid a full hearing even if you think you have not done anything wrong. Full hearing's are really stressful and best avoided. But if the knock on effect of accepting the warning is that you lose your career that is a real blow.

www.socialworkengland.org.uk/concerns/information-for-social-workers-under-investigation/case-examiner-stage/

Donated and text to all my GC social worker friends who will do the same

If this is the case, I think it is correct she be suspended.

It doesn't matter if she made these postings in her free time on a personal account, if you are a professional in many jobs such as this one, you can be held responsible for what you post online in your free time. This certainly isn't the first time someone has been fired over posting stuff on Social Media in their own time.

I was wondering why Rachel Meade hadn't appealed her regulator's decision but it looks as if the "warning" from SWE has come from case examiners rather than from a fitness to practice hearing. AFAIK I don't think you can appeal against a warning if it has come from the case examiners. For a registrant to be suspended they would have to have a full hearing with the opportunity to defend themselves and to appeal the decision if it is wrong.