Kellie Jay Keen

I’ve always found these photos so chilling.

People don't realise ^ those were the scenes throughout the Middle East. They just assume all Middle Eastern women have always dressed in black robes.

Like this photo taken of Afghan women in 1971:

Let Women Speak indeed

One thing she does is force the Overton window. The messages she is posting at the moment are truly distressing. I cannot imagine what the women who are writing them feel for their future. I find the photos taken from some of these countries in the 70s are like a whole other world.

The testaments she posts are heartbreaking. KJK is marmite, but God she goes straight to the heart of issues. "He's a man". "Free your face".

Good for her. Feminists should be more outspoken about the niqab. Religion shouldn't be considered a hot potato. She's excellent at getting right to the heart of matters, which is why she's so popular.

The conversations KJK is sparking this week over the niqab are interesting. I don’t fully agree with her, nor did I like how she spoke to the ladies in the video, but I admire her courage in raising this issue. A lot of professional feminists won’t touch it.

KJK is a lot of things, but stupid isn’t one of them.

As someone who lost a friend in one of those attacks, Glinner can do one if he thinks he can weaponise that into supporting what he wants to support.

It would of course be illegal to not employ someone solely on the basis of a protected characteristic.

That said...

There's usually a bit at the end of the interview where the panel say "Do you have any questions for us?" That's a good moment to ask about any accomodations that might be necessary for a particular PC you might have.

Such as, "I have restricted mobility, how accessible is your building?"

Or, "I'm Muslim, do you have a space that can accomodate prayers at the appointed times?"

Or, "I'm Jewish and I keep kosher, do you have vegetarian options in your canteen?"

My memory of that AIBU thread is that the OP's daughter was going into interviews and beginning with "I'm non-binary and my pronouns are they/them" and monologuing about it. This is wrong. I can't imagine what special accomodations an enby might need, but the time to mention that, if you need to mention it, is at the end.

If you go in and put your baroque gender identity on full blast, and generally act as if you're doing the employer a favour by agreeing to be interviewed, the interview panel might reasonably conclude that you're not really interested in the job.

Totally 🙄

Judging by that clip and the hosts fawning, you'd think IW would have been able to capitalise on all those TV appearances.

But no.

Yes, it's another gift that the transactivists have given to trans people; associating them with the sort of anti-social behaviour that will, of course, make people think twice about how well they might fit into the flat-share or the workforce.

Oh wow here's a blast from the past!

Good grief, got to laugh at the posts saying there is a 'context' to Kelly Jay Keen recommending wholesale employment and housing refusal simply on the basis of trans status. 🙄

The recruitment I'm involved is at the more senior level, and I still have to say things like, "She's got an impressive CV, based on the CV alone I'd say she could do the job, but unfortunately the answers she gave didn't address the essential criteria."

There's a technique to doing interviews. I'm not the greatest at it myself, but I've seen very experienced people crash and burn because they didn't get the technique.

If faced with a blue haired youngster interviewing for an entry level position, who spends the first five minutes monologuing about her pronouns, I would have to question whether she actually wants the job.

Obviously I would not bring up trans or misgendering... merely ask questions in order to try to see if they are or are not tolerant of a variety of legally held views. It cannot be discrimination those who will attempt to silence legally held views, or object to them.

As PPs have said, there was a context to that clip.

I’ve seen a couple of threads on MN, one referencing a term used in HR circles of “HMH” meaning High Maintenance Hire, or people who are going to be/become troublemakers. Another thread was from a parent wondering why her child, who had pronouns on their CV and announced their non-binary status at interviews, wasn’t getting a job.

I don’t want to see trans people shut out of society and unable to get a job or rent a house, but - given the tantrums, the bullying and the victimhood that goes on - I can see why people would quietly give a swerve to someone they suspect is going to complain about being misgendered by colleagues, or be the sort of person who rings you at 3am because the kitchen lightbulb has gone and they don’t see why they should change it themselves.

But this brings us back to the central theme of this thread - I don’t agree with everything KJK says (and if I’d had a fraction of the flack she has, maybe I’d be that bloody angry too) but that doesn’t mean agreeing with her on other things is a tacit endorsement of every opinion or that she should be “cancelled” for saying something I don’t like.

@JamieCannister the risk would be that the candidate would set the wrath of the TRAs upon you and your business.

That’s potentially pretty risky. You’d find it hard to evidence it wasn’t transphobia on your part, given that everything is transphobia.

I wonder what the best way to handle such interviews is? I think I might seek to make it 100% clear that two of the most important requirements for the job are a customer-focussed attitude (the customer is always right, and if I am misgendered then I will say NOTHING because my role is to serve the customer and make their visit as good as possible so they return and make my boss even more money in future), and an explicit desire to embrace and celebrate the only true diversity that matters - diversity of belief and opinion (which obviously does not extend to intolerant beliefs, such as sexism, homophobia or support for terrorism).

She did well there- three against one. No support just contradiction from everyone else there.

I think there was a chap in a skin tight stretchy dress interviewing for a nursery nurse position as well. The outfit was unsuitable for an interview even worn by a woman.

if I remember correctly that video came out following a youngster who was pontificating about a job interview they had just been to.
The blue haired multiply pierced and tattooed youngster schooled the interviewer in pronouns and inclusion and generally demonstrated no customer facing skills and no tolerance for diversity at all. She was then outraged to find she didn’t get the job.

No wait- she turned the job offer down as it was made unpalatable-
She’d demonstrated her utter pain in the arse unsuitability for employment in your average workplace and the potential employer had cleverly made the job look unappetising rather than risk saying ‘no’ to this belligerent child.

That was under discussion at the time.

It is wrong to discriminate against someone for making the [meaningless] claim that they are trans.

It is not wrong to refuse to tolerate or employ or provide services to people who engage in appalling behaviours. How can - for example - an employer meet the needs of their female staff whilst employing someone who is male and constantly trying to access things / spaces set up for women?