Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

420 replies

MidCenturyClegs · 13/01/2022 14:58

A social worker, Rachel Meade, is in the process of challenging Social Work England - their professional regulatory body - as she believes she may have discriminated against her due to gender critical beliefs.

This is because during the GRA consultation, she shared posts on her private FB page, from FPFW, WPUK & Standing for Women, among others. These were being secretly screenshot by an ex colleague who then sent these to Social Work England, claiming that the posts were from groups who were discriminatory in nature, transphobic and who wanted to remove trans rights.

SWE decided that this was the case and sanctioned her, leading her employer to investigate her for gross misconduct. They placed a public Fitness to practice warning sanction on her record for a year. She has been suspended by her employer as a result of Social Work England's decision and will be facing a disciplinary process which she has been told may end in her dismissal.

She is taking both Social Work England and her employer to a tribunal; this is a really important case as if she wins, it will clarify in law that not only are employers bound to protect gender critical beliefs under EA2010, but Regulatory bodies are bound by it too.

This will mean that all regulatory bodies will have to recognise that the gender critical beliefs of their registrants/members are protected in law. This will cover social work, healthcare & law as well as any other areas covered by regulatory bodies so will have far reaching effects.

I have heard that she may be setting up a crowdfunder but obviously this is not the place to advertise that, but if people wish to donate should be easy to find.
Just saw that the Times have covered this too.

twitter.com/EmilieCCole/status/1481638709724270593?s=20

OP posts:
VelvetChairGirl · 13/01/2022 18:02

Its the bloody stasi in this country but only it seems against women.

BreastedBoobilyToTheStairs · 13/01/2022 17:58

@RepentMotherfucker

Any ideas from Mr Blobby (real or identified) today?
Grin
Abhannmor · 13/01/2022 17:55

@Glinner thank you 😊 I just donated to Rachel's crowdfunder. Céim ar céim. Step by step.

Enough4me · 13/01/2022 17:55

She has a crowd raising site with information, it's in "crowdjustice" online.

I hope she wins!

barleybadminton · 13/01/2022 17:53

As I say, they responded by removing, but continued their action against Rachel

No public apology then? What did your solicitors say?

RepentMotherfucker · 13/01/2022 17:50

Any ideas from Mr Blobby (real or identified) today?

purpleboy · 13/01/2022 17:33

Oh hi marg wondered how long it would be before you piped up. 🙄

RepentMotherfucker · 13/01/2022 17:33

She was also criticised for signing petitions and donating to organisations that were alleged to have discriminated against specific groups.

How can you possibly think this makes your side look good? I just don't get it. I'm starting to think you are a plant (not a mistaken consonant autocorrect - however tempting an assumption that might be)

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 13/01/2022 17:32

(As a general rule, if you want to be contentious or even just express yourself freely, and you believe that what you do in your own time is none of your employer's business, the most sensible thing is to have separate social media accounts under an alias nor nickname.)

The view that gender is the same as sex, is allocated at birth and can change is highly contentious, not least for being counter to scientific knowledge. Do you think people should only do this under aliases? I'd welcome that as it would obliterate the anti women training being ruled out in the name of equality.

MargaritaPie · 13/01/2022 17:27

@ScreamingMeMe

This is ridiculous. Surely, in light of Maya's case, if all she has been doing is expressing gender critical views, she will have every success with this?

This snitching to people's employers (it only took ONE complaint?) has got to stop. It's so vindictive.

*"The regulator found that Meade had “engaged in a pattern of discriminatory behaviour which persisted over an extended period” by sharing social media posts more than 70 times.

She was also criticised for signing petitions and donating to organisations that were alleged to have discriminated against specific groups.

Regulators said that Meade’s actions “could be perceived to be derogatory and potentially discriminatory to members of the transgender community” and others who were concerned about a social worker’s “ability to act in an anti-oppressive manner which values the diverse lived experience of others”."*

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.

Whatiswrongwithmyknee · 13/01/2022 17:27

@Wreath21

If someone can't keep their bigotry to themselves they have no business working with vulnerable people. If, for instance, someone's religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong, their right to believe that might be a protected characteristic, but it doesn't protect them against disciplinary action if there is a likelhood - or even evidence - that they will be unable to shut the fuck up about their bigotry should they have to deal with a member of the group they are bigoted against.

Maya Forstetter was essentially penalised because she demanded the right to be rude to other people with no consequences ie the right to describe them as male/female according to her perspective rather than theirs, with impunity.

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.

JDaytona · 13/01/2022 17:26

@Glinner We love you.

TheWeeDonkey · 13/01/2022 17:24

@Plasmodesmata

From the Times article:

She adds that she believes that “biological sex is real, important and immutable and is not to be conflated with gender identity”, that “there are two sexes, male and female” and “that a person cannot change their sex”.

I agree - framing this as a "belief" seems odd. Anyway - if this "belief" is a problem then I've got one too - because that's what I "believe".

Am I allowed to believe it but not say it?
Or do I have to recant it?

Eppur si muove.

Its not just a belief Plasmodesmate its an extreme belief!
ArabellaScott · 13/01/2022 17:21

@Omicrone

You mean like the surveillance of the trans guide leader accused of being a safeguarding risk all over the internet including here after people trawled her social media and found a picture of her in a leather dress?

Jesus, are you really going to bring that one up again as an example?!

I mean, if barley wants to keep reminding us of this person, okay.

Let's not forget Monique's offer to show 'more boobs'.

Lovelyricepudding · 13/01/2022 17:20

Just a reminder that 'bigotted' means intolerance if others beliefs - for example a bigot may display an intolerance of GC beliefs and exhibit their bigotry by trying to get anyone with GC beliefs sacked or supporting those who do.

RepentMotherfucker · 13/01/2022 17:15

@Glinner

I wrote to them after they used my blog as evidence of her wrongthink and said I would sue. They took down the reference, but still targeted Rachel! I'm hoping this makes a difference to her case.

Here's what I wrote to them.

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has come to my attention that I have been defamed in public-facing documents relating to Case SW77554 against Rachel Meade.

I quote: Sharing a fundraiser on Facebook titled “Thank you to Glinner”. This post appears to refer to Graham Linehan who publicly denounces the rights of transgender people. The case examiners are aware that this individual was issued a police caution and cease and desist order relating to his harassment of a trans woman online. Concerns have also been expressed regarding his views of women which have been described as “misogynistic”.

This is untrue and defamatory. I would like a public apology from Social Work England or I will be passing this matter to my solicitors, who I include on this email.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Linehan

As I say, they responded by removing, but continued their action against Rachel

Thank you for doing that for her.
Plasmodesmata · 13/01/2022 17:03

From the Times article:

She adds that she believes that “biological sex is real, important and immutable and is not to be conflated with gender identity”, that “there are two sexes, male and female” and “that a person cannot change their sex”.

I agree - framing this as a "belief" seems odd. Anyway - if this "belief" is a problem then I've got one too - because that's what I "believe".

Am I allowed to believe it but not say it?
Or do I have to recant it?

Eppur si muove.

Glinner · 13/01/2022 17:02

Removing the reference, I mean

Glinner · 13/01/2022 17:02

I wrote to them after they used my blog as evidence of her wrongthink and said I would sue. They took down the reference, but still targeted Rachel! I'm hoping this makes a difference to her case.

Here's what I wrote to them.

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has come to my attention that I have been defamed in public-facing documents relating to Case SW77554 against Rachel Meade.

I quote: Sharing a fundraiser on Facebook titled “Thank you to Glinner”. This post appears to refer to Graham Linehan who publicly denounces the rights of transgender people. The case examiners are aware that this individual was issued a police caution and cease and desist order relating to his harassment of a trans woman online. Concerns have also been expressed regarding his views of women which have been described as “misogynistic”.

This is untrue and defamatory. I would like a public apology from Social Work England or I will be passing this matter to my solicitors, who I include on this email.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Linehan

As I say, they responded by removing, but continued their action against Rachel

Imnobody4 · 13/01/2022 16:57

Wreath21 is a great motivator. I'm not wasting my time arguing just digging.

FFSFFSFFS · 13/01/2022 16:56

What annoys me is that this is even presented as a beliefs issue. Human biology is a material fact. If basic biologt is considered a belief …

Signalbox · 13/01/2022 16:56

This is SUCH an important case as it will set a precedent for all regulatory bodies if she wins.

Would it though? It is an important case but I'm not sure that an employment tribunal would set a precedent unless it was appealed.

anon12345678901 · 13/01/2022 16:54

@Wreath21

Unfortunately a lot of bigots and wingnuts won't do this because they are raging attention seekers and it's important to them to bellow across multiple platforms about how 'silenced' they are.
You mean people who believe in science? Name calling is so predictable and it also means you have nothing of importance to say.
Helleofabore · 13/01/2022 16:50

Err. Of course people’s Facebook posts and stories can be set to Private.

We discussed this on the GG thread.

And Sulley should have had their posts set to limited to friends rather than public with their BDSM accessories and their poses with guns. Now their profile photo of them in the bath Imposed over a line up of small girls in party dresses… that tends to be always public.

There is a difference.

Omicrone · 13/01/2022 16:49

You mean like the surveillance of the trans guide leader accused of being a safeguarding risk all over the internet including here after people trawled her social media and found a picture of her in a leather dress?

Jesus, are you really going to bring that one up again as an example?!