Council worker sacked over pronouns

He stated the truth as his pronoun, im on his side,even being arsey he shouldn't have been sacked.

Correct

This is where we are.

A made up ideology which means people can put made up words as pronouns like zir. And doing so indicates support for this made up ideology. But someone who disagrees can't put their version instead.

Which, incidentally, isn't made up.

Stating you're an adult human male is the truth. Stating you're neither male nor female, or the opposite sex, isn't.

But we're so far down the rabbit hole, it's considered arsey.

😂

But why doesn't he get to choose those as his pronouns? If other people get to choose how people refer to them, why doesn't he?

Noone likes a troublemaking smart arse.

Who is Noone and why do they like a troublemaking smart arse?

The truth is now an arsey threat to special people.

i get so frustrated with this kind of reporting

a council worker was asked to put pronouns in their signature, and rather than just not doing it he used it to put something there that was obviously confrontational

This would have no issues, except that he works for the council which should be a resource available to all without barrier/prejudice. He very obviously has not adhered to the expectations set out in council jobs country wide

basically, he’s been sacked for being an arse

This
Can't read properly as it's a paywall but I assume it's because he was arsey about it, not that he didn't want to display any pronouns

"In “protest”, Mr Orwin, an IT project officer, changed his email footer to “XYchromosomeGuy/AdultHumanMale” "

Noone likes a troublemaking smart arse.

I think there's more to this than just being 'arsey' about his choice of pronouns [they're nouns actually..] and refusal to remove them.

Look at the reason given for suspending and sacking him:
He was suspended and eventually sacked after repeatedly refusing to remove his protest pronouns after bosses warned that they posed a “serious risk” to the transgender community and the council’s reputation. [my emphasis]

It is obviously nonsense to suggest that by using mocking but accurate pronouns this worker was in any way a 'serious risk' to trans people, it sounds like our old friend 'literal violence', doesn't it?

It's also a very serious accusation to make against a worker - not that they are being arsey or a dick, or refusing to follow orders, but that they are behaving in a threatening way, posing a 'serious risk' to members of the public.

Being asked to remove your choice of pronouns because they are irritating and OTT is one thing; being told your are behaviour is so dangerous and threatening to trans people that you're going to be sacked is something else.

How does this sit with the Forstater judgement? I hope he appeals - it's an outrageous decision. He stated the truth - XY and adult male. WTF is xi/xin/Ze

I despair that local government put so much energy into this crap when their care services are failing, teachers are supplying their own colouring pens, roads are crumbling and there is fly tipping everywhere because they are reducing waste collection.

And I don't see where he was being a dick.

I also think some autistic people are likely to be more adversely affected by policies that expect them to play along with a pretence.

I think this is firmly in the bucket of play stupid games win stupid prizes.

I would say having to read she/her, he/him etc at the end of emails is “provocative” if like this man you don’t believe in trans ideology. I think he did well to stick his neck out and only wish more people would do the same.
If he had written something rude like trans people are idiots at the end of his emails then I could see why he was sacked but simply to state the biological facts as he did is completely acceptable in my view.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/news-opinion/what-chief-executives-departure-means-8922491
“The Local Government Association's (LGA) Peer Challenge Review claimed that the council was inward-looking, with power concentrated in the hands of long-serving officers.”

”It also alleged that bullying behaviour had been witnessed during the visit of the Peer Challenge team. Although references to bullying were removed from the final version of the report, the council's failure to keep a count of cases admitted by Ms Lacey was branded unacceptable.”

WickedSerious · Today 18:56

Every employee should've gone for Juan/cur.

😂

That's probably better than mine: Fo/Ad

Absolutely Beth216

Everyone is allowed to identify as whatever they want … unless we don’t agree with your identity, then we’ll sack you for it.
see also:
-TWAW, right up until they rape or murder someone, then they were just men pretending (although that never happens, so let’s just keep it quiet).
-You can choose to identify as whatever you want, unless we decide you’re ‘cis’, then that is your identity however you feel about it.

The council worker was right to show up a nonsense and discriminatory policy.

https://www.eastriding.gov.uk/news/article/?entry=65577424da1f3f61494fae42

presented without comment.

What was offensive about what he wrote though? It's all completely true. He is an adult human male, he does have xychromosomes. Why is it provocative to state the truth?

I don't understand why it's ok for a biological male who is trans to put she/her when it's not true and just what they want people to pretend - but he's not allowed to make up something he wants people to use.

What an idiot. It clearly wasn't compulsory, staff were just invited to consider adding pronouns. If he didn't agree with it just don't add them

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66952029a3c2a28abb50cf74/Mr_J_Orwin_v_East_Riding_of_Yorkshire_Council_-6000146-2022-_Final.pdf

This is the judgement. I agree it seems like their policy included neo pronouns, no pronouns etc and the opportunity to change them at different times and in different contexts. (See point 20).

Yeah this! He made his point - that was enough but he was a dick about it. Council didn’t have much choice

Seems like a reasonable response by the council worker to me. it would have been better if he’d put fuck/off.

The council claimed his actions put trans people at ‘serious risk’. Where do they get this rubbish from? Would any of out TRA lurkers like to explain this risk to me?

He sounds a bit dim tbh. He made his point but then stupidly dug himself into a corner with it. Big mistake.

He should have changed them weekly to various wild and wacky iterations and pleaded ignorance every time to see how long he could’ve got away with it. The whole thing deserves mockery so I applaud him for that at least.