Kellie Jay Keen

'Silly goose'
Love that, @IcakethereforeIam - haven't heard it for years!!!
Yes - noticed the Zombie revivalist too 🙄

Don't read her posts then🙄She says she is not a feminist, if you're worried she'll give feminists a bad name😱

Slightly off topic, but, I’ve just read (on X) that John was very badly beaten by a man, after John tic’d in a pub.

Poor bastard. I worry about his mental health being in the eye of the storm in this way.

@AdultHumanF It's a quandary. If I'm adding to a thread that isn't the freshest I generally acknowledge that in my post.

We've had a silly goose reviving a bunch of ancient threads, you may have been mistaken as being part of that.

If I start a new thread, I’ll likely be met with a chorus of “Why didn’t you add this to the millions of other threads on KJK?”

Then start a new thread to add your new wisdom.

Not really? The thread is less than a year old and contains a lot of the same points I’m making?

Zombie

I’ve been a fan of KJK for years, but I’m a bit upset with her recent steer towards racial politics. So many of her posts the last few weeks are attacking Muslims or the BAFTAs n-word incident.

She doesn't claim to be a feminist.

I think she's wrong about that, but just for the record.

It was Stonewall who said cross-dressing men were part of the trans umbrella. Not Mumsnet!

It shouldn't be a protected characteristic.

This is lazy inaccurate nonsense.

Oh please, you can’t play an uno reverse card and claim I’m the one saying that trans people are narcissistic after everything that’s been said on this thread.

There’s clear bias here and I wouldn’t trust a single person on this thread to make a fair decision if a trans person was on a panel. Which is why it’s so important to still have GR as a PC.

Like everyone else here, I wouldn't not hire someone because they were trans, but I would avoid hiring anyone who presented at interview as a narcissistic pain in the arse.

If you think that would be discriminatory its saying something about how you perceive trans people.

What part of “it would be discriminatory to not employ a trans person just because they are trans.” don’t you understand?

I wouldn’t avoid it no, because I understand the EA and that gender critical views are a PC.

What part of ‘you can’t choose not to hire someone because of a protected characteristic’ don’t you understand?

Don’t pretend that you wouldn’t avoid employing a GC if you owned your own business.

it would be discriminatory to not employ a trans person just because they are trans. But if they are using activist language or behaving in a way at interview or show signs in their application that they would be disruptive in the workplace and cause problems for the business then they should absolutely be given a swerve.

Wow…I hope none of you people are ever in a position where you need to hire or interview someone.

Maybe instead of just getting your information about trans people from mumsnet, you should look up the reason why GR was included in the EA in the first place and the reasoning behind it.

Even looking more closely at red flags for someone who is part of a PC group is unlawful.

When a significant number of trans people are men with a sexual fetish that demands public participation, you have to ask yourself why the bloody hell it is a protected characteristic, though.

I absolutely would. If someone seems as if they’re going to be a pain in the arse and cause disruption/be unreasonably difficult I would manage to find a legal reason to give them a swerve. I’d do that with anyone who seemed awkward tbh - why would you make life deliberately difficult for yourself and everyone else?

I know everyone likes to pretend they’re a paragon of virtue but if someone seems like a pain in the arse at an interview, in reality, not many people will hire them. Peaceful working conditions are important. Some trans/NB people might come over really well and be lovely - in which case, great. But given the huge problems many within that community have caused, I’d be looking very closely for any red flags.

I am increasingly uncomfortable with many of KJK’s views too. But absolutely, on women’s rights, she is (usually) unflinching. The sole exception being her enthusiastic endorsement of the orange rapist.

I'm not saying I would do that, I'm saying I can see why someone else would feel that way. And I've made clear that I don't necessarily agree with KJK on everything she says.

Gender Reassignment is still a protected characteristic under the equality act.

Not giving a trans person a job because of things you’ve read about trans people online is unlawful, even if it’s ‘quietly giv[ing] a swerve’.

I remember seeing a tv programme, maybe in the 80s where the older women kept forgetting to use the head scarves and had to be reminded by their daughters.

They make me unutterably sad.