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

Most of us don't
Anyone I speak to about it is either full on GC or politely pretending whilst also raising concerns about abused girls and autistics teens.
There are a small number of vocal evangelical TRAs in social work but they aren't the majority

That is reassuring to hear @CloseYourEyesAndSee

TRA's have no place in social work. It's not part of a social worker's job to push their 'non fact based' views onto anyone, let alone the vulnerable people they are meant to be supporting.

That's reassuring CloseYourEyesAndSee
I suspect it's just like numerous other professions where all the sane responsible people try to navigate their way through protecting children while ducking the male supremacists and blinkered ideologues who fail to understand the contradictions between ideological demands for conformity of expression versus the need to protect vulnerable children.

It's so predictable (boringly so) that the gender ideologists always have to stoop to name calling

Surely @Wreath21 the difference is that sex is a a fact (see science). Any professional person should be judged on the way they process known facts rather than anything else.

Sorry for guiding derail.

"www.messengernewspapers.co.uk/news/14134583.rangers-from-urmston-girl-guides-take-aim-at-altrincham-target-sports-centre/"

I guess they were firing at 'objects' rather than people shaped targets then as per the guidance. Sulley captioned her pictures with talk of punishing people.

This is huge. The Government carries out a consultation on reform of the GRA. Stonewall lobbies in favour of reform, enlisting organisations including public sector bodies, to support them. Legitimate feminist groups campaign against reform.

The Government is surprised that lots of ordinary people from all over the country complete the consultation, expressing their concerns about self ID.

Now a professional loses her job because she has circulated privately material from those feminist groups, and from mainstream media.

Undemocratic, censorship…you name it. Obviously some on this thread will see it as justified. Silencing women is fine as long as they achieve their agenda.

Rachel Meade is clearly a brave and strong woman. There will be lots of digging in her garden, and the plants will flourish.

So many of my DD's teen friends are autistic, trans/non-binary, have EDs.. SWs need to feel empowered to see the right treatment for all of these, not fear challenging gender stuff.

Trans/non-binary people should of course be treated right. You'd be wrong to say they challenge gender though, you can't be trans/non-binary without gender.

So many of my DD's teen friends are autistic, trans/non-binary, have EDs.. SWs need to feel empowered to see the right treatment for all of these, not fear challenging gender stuff.

Probably best social workers don't post things on social media which attempt to link trans people with paedophilia then eh?

That goes way beyond Forstater, and I doubt she'll be the last to find herself in this mess. If you are in a professional role and are posting conspiracy theories about 'queers' or queer theory being a paedophile plot, or the simple existence of trans people being a safeguarding risk then you are placing your job at risk, just as you would be if you were posting similar comments about gay people or people of colour or any other protected group.

Incidentally it seems Reade has changed her views and previously blamed gender critical feminists for the trouble she got into. As such it seems unlikely she will be held as a credible witness by the courts. Changing your story every five minutes is not a good luck.

The social worker has reflected on their learning and has provided the regulator
with evidence of their continued professional development. The social worker has
given some thought to the gaps in their knowledge base, they state “I have always
felt that I embraced LGBT issues but this training has enabled me to reflect on my
reduced understanding on gender diverse and trans people. I have always been a
feminist and on reflection I feel that I may have been swayed by the mistaken view
of other prominent feminists who felt that promoting transgender rights would
impede on women’s rights. This was a gap in my knowledge base and this training
has shown me how to work in a much more inclusive way”

www.socialworkengland.org.uk/media/4061/20210610-meade-r-final-250821_.pdf

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/programme-and-activities/guidance-on-activities/prohibited-activities/

Girlguiding does not allow games where weapons of any form are fired at human- or animal-shaped targets. This activity is prohibited because it does not fit with the aims and objectives of guiding. However, paintball guns and laser guns are permitted if fired at other objects, for example, in a coconut shy activity. (My bold)

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?

I imagine it was the posing with guns and whips rather than the leather dress.

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.

[quote RocketAndAFuckingMelon]@Wreath21 surely the question is the extent to which a regulator is entitled to interfere with someone's lawfully held beliefs expressed exclusively in private.

In your hypothetical example - if you have a member of a regulated profession (SW, solicitor, teacher etc) who said on their private FB page that homosexuality was wrong, but there was no evidence that this privately held belief affected the way they interacted with the public - because no complaint was raised at work - but their supposed friends screenshot the posts and sent them to the regulator, is that
a) totally ok, bigots are bigots and deserve to be unemployed and unemployable; or
b) an unacceptable infringement of their freedom of expression?

Personally I think the normalisation of surveillance and reporting is in general more deplorable and more of a social ill than privately held views, but YMMV.[/quote]
'The extent to which a regulator is entitled to interfere' should be decided on a case-by-case basis (whatever the beliefs in question).
Most people who get into trouble for social media posts have been posting on non-private social media (Twitter rather than FB) or they have been airing their views in the workplace, or sharing them in such a way that it reflects badly on their employers.

(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.)