Discussing gender issues in the office ‘unwise’, says judge

I would that fairly clearly goes in the “factual but unwise to bring up at work” bucket! Clearly people with very conservative views exist and they may believe gay people should be stoned (or that they subscribe to a religion that states so, perhaps rather than actively wishing for the stoning) and they may have jobs. And it would not be a crime to say they have those beliefs it out loud at work. But it would be really unwise and ill considered, so don’t say it.

It’s very much the same as knowing tomato is a fruit but don’t put it in a fruit salad. Time and place.

Listen, as you are clearly unable to comprehend a simple concept as in the weaponisation of facts that apply to some of an identity group as representative of the whole group then I think we will leave it there.

As far as some gender criticals using dehumanising & demonising language, yes that is a fact & maybe a fact you perhaps can't recognise because it may be acceptable to you.

Everything was on a different line. Some: clearly preceded the list. The full stops could have been semi colons or no punctuation but it was clearly a list preceded by the word some which I managed to understand.

Agree!

Punctuation is actually crucial if you want people to understand what you are saying.

If you want people to realise that you have written one very long sentence, it's not a great idea to pepper it with full stops, is it?

He may have written "Some: Mexicans are rapists = fact." with an unnecessary colon, but he then went on to write:

"Arabs are terrorists = fact."
"Gay people are pedos [sic] = fact."
"Black people commit more crimes = fact."
"Gender critical people are transphobic = fact."

The full stops make these standalone sentences which are not in any way qualified by the word "some", even if the word "some" made a meaningful difference, which it doesn't really (for the reasons I explained above).

It's like the difference between "Let's eat Grandma" and "Let's eat, Grandma."

Punctuation matters.

Yes but not crucial and people keep pretending the word some did not precede the entire list

I would suggest that bullet points are helpful in this sort of situation.

Almost as if this person is the common denominator, huh?

Some:
People don’t read the whole post
People don’t know how lists with an introductory word followed by a colon work
Of us knew exactly how this point would play out on mumsnet.

Your meaning here was not clear and I suspect this was your intention all along.

Now, what is the phrase "some Mexicans are rapists" supposed to tell us? You could replace the word "Mexicans" with any nationality in the world and it would still be true, so how is this a relevant thing to say?

You could replace "Arabs" with most other ethnicities and it would still be true.

You could replace "gay people" with straight people and it would still be true.

As for "black people commit more crimes", this sentence is a comparator so adding "some" makes an already unsubstantiated claim even less clear. "Black people commit more crimes" is an incomplete sentence which needs to end with "than [comparator group]" and be backed up by verifiable data. "Some black people commit more crimes" doesn't make any sense whether you include a comparator group or not, because "some" people from all ethnicities commit more crimes than "other" people from all ethnicities, so this actually tells us nothing at all about how many crimes are committed by black people.

As for "gender critical people are transphobic," or even "some gender critical people are transphobic", you don't appear to understand what gender critical actually means, so neither version is meaningful.

As such, only the first three become facts by adding the word "some" at the beginning, but they are not meaningful facts.

And the latter two make no sense whether you add the word "some" or not.

The claimant seems to have bit of a track record in such cases. This was in the Comments section in The Times:

This is the heart of it isn't it? Another charity, small business, individual financially harmed by someone trying to impose their niche ideology (that they're neither a man or woman 😄) on a workplace.

One of the comments under the article states that this individual has taken another employer to a tribunal for discrimination

Thanks for posting. Claimant brings completely unfounded claims against a small charity. The judge not only dismisses all her claims but finds that she lied. Oh and being non-binary is not a protected characteristic. The charity will not have been able to recover costs.

Not so long ago, where I was working, it was all about 'bring your whole self to work' and 'everyone should be free to express themselves fully'. It was also pretty clear though that didn't actually include anyone who believes that there are only two sexes and no one can change between them.

Since then, it's only got worse. It often feels like having to carry around a deep, dark secret and it really shouldn't be that way. People should never have to fear for their jobs and careers for believing a probable fact.

Not so long ago, where I was working, it was all about 'bring your whole self to work' and 'everyone should be free to express themselves fully'. It was also pretty clear though that didn't actually include anyone who believes that there are only two sexes and no one can change between them.

Since then, it's only got worse. It often feels like having to carry around a deep, dark secret and it really shouldn't be that way. People should never have to fear for their jobs and careers for believing a probable fact.

The original post:

"Some:
Mexicans are rapists = fact.
Arabs are terrorists = fact
Gay people are pedos = fact
Black people commit more crimes = fact
Gender critical people are transphobic = fact"

I am fascinated by the "what is WORIADS?" element of religious belief.

Obviously people should be free to say "by the way I'm a Muslim". Obviously religious belief is protected.

But what if they then say to their gay colleagues "by the way, I am very much the conservative end of Islam and I believe that all societies should be full Sharia Law and part of that is killing gay men by stoning"?

But a couple of us have pointed out to you that just writing some without completing the sentence makes no sense.

Not in the same sentence that you labelled a "fact".

If I typed the phrase "trans women are men" and someone reported me to HR, how do you think it would go if I said that what I had actually said is "trans women are not men" because I had used the word "not" in a different sentence?

I posted "some" repeatedly.

I'm saying that "Mexicans are rapists", which is what you actually typed and labelled "fact" is not a fact.

Oh dear. Completely unnecessary.

Lol, are you seriously suggesting a Mexican never committed a rape? 🤪

Retrospectively adding the word "some" changes the entire meaning.

There were zero facts in what you posted. None.

What untruths? That some individuals from those groups are implicated are facts.

As I already stated, "context matters" when discussing facts.