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

Um ,yes they are facts for some individuals from those groups

As I already mentioned upthread (might help if you read it) "context matters" when discussing facts.

Agree. Makes no sense to me.

Poor old hows. Spends sooo many hours on here yet his endless posts never quite make their mark, always needing correcting, clarifying and even interpreting at times. 😂

It should.

Unfortunately it doesn’t.

None of those things are facts so whatever point you think you are making here is invalid.

Actual facts are frequently relevant in the workplace, yes.

For example, "for the purposes of single sex toilets, sex means biological sex so if we have any trans employees who are unwilling to use the toilets for their sex we need to try and find a lawful solution" is a fact which is relevant to the workplace.

Another fact which is relevant to the workplace is, "gender critical beliefs are protected beliefs in law and so we cannot fire people for not believing trans women are women". All managers and all HR bods need to know this fact if they don't want to find themselves getting a ticking off in the employment tribunal.

Oh! I get it!

He means-
Some Mexicans are…
Some black people are…
etc.

Still not sure of the relevance but it makes marginally more sense.

Quite. It works both ways.

Someone wearing a turban, or other religious dress, requires nothing of me.
Unless I’m in health and safety or see an H&S issue, I have no need to consider or talk about their dress.

Someone expecting me to use the opposite pronouns does.

By the way, your other post makes no sense to English people. Perhaps the use of SOME followed by a list of untruths has a meaning where you are?

typo

To be fair to the judge, it is a contentious topic, and one that I have long avoided talking about at work, until I am sure that the person I’m discussing it with shares my views.

The problem is not that it’s a contentious topic, the problem is that it’s a very divisive topic and those on one side of it feel entirely vindicated in raising it (announcing pronouns in meetings or putting them in email signatures) where the other side have been unfairly told that their views are so contemptible that they can’t express them.

That situation has become so normalized that many don’t see it. It’s unfortunate that the judge is blind to that socially engineered inequality.

I hope that, in time, it will be seen that virtue signaling your political allegiance to gender ideology will come to be seen as just as contentious as sticking your opinion on abortion in your email signature or announcing it in meetings as you introduce yourself.

Obviously if someone decides to undergo a process of “gender reassignment” in the workplace, the topic will have to be dealt with, but beyond that, it isn’t something anyone should be proselytizing on in the workplace.

If it's unwise to discuss gender in the office then presumably that also extends to using labels like "cis", asking people what their pronouns are and whingeing about the Supreme Court judgment...right?

I’m a bit confused. I think there are SOME words missing around your SOME.

Do you mean:

To some people…

or

Some people believe or say that…

"SOME"

And a judge chatting about his or her opinions on what people should and shouldn't talk about in the workplace should not be news.

Reform are going to scrap the EA, aren't they?

Erm no. These are not facts.

Are you in the US?

Christ. This is not and never should be a reason for a fucking tribunal. It's just a bit of chat, ffs, even if it had happened as the claimant claimed.

Context matters. That you don't comprehend this is why we are where we are….

You could say the same about a person sporting religious garb. That doesn't mean their beliefs are up for 'discussion'.

Um the point is whether something is a 'fact is irrelevant to work place relations.
This is quite hilarious. But does explain why Howseitg keeps coming up with these absolute bangers. Yes, facts are relevant. In the workplace, on MN and everywhere else.
I don't think anyone could possibly make a worse rebuttal to any argument than 'whether something is a fact is irrelevant'. 🤣🤣🤣

Um the point is whether something is a 'fact is irrelevant to work place relations.

That there are only 2 sexes is an actual proveable fact as opposed to your made up nonsense stated above because all of the 'facts' you've listed can be disproved

you really aren't getting any better at this are you

Well Natasha sounds like an absolute lying horror so I'm glad they lost their case. Huge sympathy for their manager who was put through the wringer for no doubt expecting Natasha to do the job b they was paid for.

and it's unwise to point out reality ie that there are only two sexes? So the judge is endorsing the chilling effect as Helen Joyce of enforcing compliance through ensuring no one is allowed to bounce reality? Bollocks to that!

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

See where this is going?

'Facts' are not only often weaponised but can cause work place disharmony & employers, co workers & customers rightly regard fact shamers as a liability.

Shame the judge saw fit to wedge that in that unnecessary comment as he dismissed the transphobia claim as "invented" - ie a lie.