Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

To agree with JK Rowling?

999 replies

StraightenUpAndFryRight · 20/12/2019 09:22

mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033

‘Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
#IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill’

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
JulyKit · 20/12/2019 23:59

Some women are privileged therefore their sex based rights don't apply is just fundamentally not how rights are meant to work, legally speaking.

Indeed.

But... I think it's fair to say that some women are privileged and therefore don't understand why women need sex based rights.

... Which is sort of what all this lib-fem thing of centring makes is probably all about.
As I'm sure you already know, Prodigal.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 21/12/2019 00:00

You're being (deliberately?) disingenuous.

Interesting that you consider it an unfair personal attack if someone says this to you but apparently you saying it to others is different, somehow.

CharlottesPleb · 21/12/2019 00:02

We are talking about an employment tribunal, not a court case. I do, however, think employers should have the right not to employ people whose views might be hurtful other people they employ, when those people have explicitly stated they reserve the right to express those views

Everyone's view might hurt other people's feelings.

Being hurt by other people thinking things you don't like is infantile at best, worthless at most, and when you expect it to be brought out into the world and used to control other people it is dictatorial and narcissistic.

Now here's a thought for you: I think most of us are sensible enough NOT to offend other people and court controversy in a professional context - far from something we assume people aren't foing this is basic human competence under most circumstances. Despite that, people who like controversy in the workplace sometimes seek to place other people, through gas lighting, manipulation etc into situations where they feel they must stand against something unreasonable and lose their job.

Before you take the moral high ground on this, how would you fare if somebody spent time and efgort identifying exactly which hill you would feel you had to die on before doing so?

I have seen this done to people - a fine colleague lost their job at my company this year exactly like this, because bullies can be good at what they do.

JulyKit · 21/12/2019 00:03

You're being (deliberately?) disingenuous. Saying that a behaviour isn't appropriate in the workplace and is grounds for non-continuation of employment is not the same as saying that the behaviour is illegal.

Grin Grin Grin

ETs apply the principles of this thing called 'employment law', @Nunsnetting. That's what they do when they decide whether or not a person was lawfully dismissed, see?

Why don't you check the tense of what I said, 'hun'?

Because it wasn't relevant.

Now do try and calm down. Read the responses to your posts, and you should learn something!

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 21/12/2019 00:04

That's sort of key, isn't it, July? Just because a particular woman is happy to give away her own rights (for whatever reason) that doesn't mean that she's entitled to give away everyone else's too.

I do think there some interesting patterns in terms of who tends to support the idea that we somehow live in a post-sex based discrimination society.

JulyKit · 21/12/2019 00:05

Exactly, Prodigal.

Nunsnetting · 21/12/2019 00:06

I considered it a personal attack when I was called a goady, disingenous shit-stirrer, yes.

I don't think that saying "You're being (deliberately?) disingenuous" is quite the same thing.

neonglow · 21/12/2019 00:07

I also saw that trans couple in the paper recently (trans man Jake graf and a trans woman who used to be an army captain, often in the press for being married and both being transgender), they are set to become parents as a surrogate is carrying their child. Anyway, they have said a few times they are having a baby girl, their daughter etc. How do they know they are having a girl??? If there’s no such thing as biological sex and the child hasn’t even been born yet Confused

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 21/12/2019 00:09

It wasn't me who said that, Nuns, so why respond to me as if I did?

Nunsnetting · 21/12/2019 00:10

ETs apply the principles of this thing called 'employment law', @Nunsnetting. That's what they do when they decide whether or not a person was lawfully dismissed, see?

Ah, I see. You don't understand the difference between employment law and common law. That explains the way you've been trying to construct your arguments.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 21/12/2019 00:11

Anyway, they have said a few times they are having a baby girl, their daughter etc. How do they know they are having a girl???

I wanted someone to ask Jo Swinson this during one of her trainwreck pre election interviews. Jo says she has sons. How does she know? Did they self ID as boys immediately upon being born via the miraculous power of neonate speech?

Nunsnetting · 21/12/2019 00:12

Prodigal Could you please point out to me the part of my post that suggested I was "responding to you as if you did"?

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 21/12/2019 00:15

The fact that you pulled out and quoted my post? When one does that it is generally assumed that one is responding directly to the post quoted.

Note - this is an example of why people are not responding positively to your posts.

Neome · 21/12/2019 00:16

StraightenUpAndFryRight

Saying this:

mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033

‘Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
#IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill’

seems reasonable to me

JulyKit · 21/12/2019 00:16

You don't understand the difference between employment law and common law.
Grin Grin Grin
They're not mutually exclusive, @Nunsnetting.
Again, I don't want to sound rude or patronising, but this isn't an area you're familiar with at all. I get that you're angry, but you're not doing yourself any favours right now. There's no shame in not knowing what's meant by 'employment law' or 'common law' or 'rights', but it's probably better just to accept that and stop digging.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 21/12/2019 00:18

To respond to "live your best life in peace and security" with an outpouring of anger says many things about the people responding that way, none of them good.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 21/12/2019 00:21

I'd like the nominate July for the "being far kinder than could reasonably be expected" award. I'm guessing it's a mum thing, having lots of practice with frustrating conversations.

Nunsnetting · 21/12/2019 00:23

The fact that you pulled out and quoted my post?

?? Are you and BarbaraStrozzi the same person and you've had a name change fail? Because the only comments I quoted in my post were Barbara calling me a goady, disingenous shit-stirrer and my own post to JulyKit - You're being (deliberately?) disingenuous - and you are certainly not me on a name change fail! Grin

QuantumEntanglement · 21/12/2019 00:24

Don’t be asking questions like that neonglow, it’s transphobic to try and rationalize any of this. This is an ideology that defies logic. Logic is transphobic. If you try and apply logic or use anything resembling reasoning you are a transphobe. Just thinking these things makes you a transphobe and if you say them out loud you could lose your job. Nod and smile. Just nod and smile.

Nunsnetting · 21/12/2019 00:28

There's no shame in not knowing what's meant by 'employment law' or 'common law' or 'rights'

I completely agree - don't worry, I'd be the last person to judge you for it. I'm not one of those posters who jumps on people for the slightest technical mistake. It is quite late at night now, after all.

neonglow · 21/12/2019 00:39

Yep definitely seems to defy logic. By declaring their unborn baby is a girl/daughter from anatomy on an ultrasound surely they are being by their own logic incredibly transphobic?

It’s just all confusing and contradictory.

JulyKit · 21/12/2019 00:51

Thank you, Prodigal!

@Nunsnetting - are you trying to self-identify as someone who knows a little about the most basic legal definitions? Respectfully, you're not convincing anyone.
(Is it prat-phobic to point that out? I fear it might be seen as such. But then again, facts are facts... Smile)

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 21/12/2019 00:55

LOL! This post right here, Nuns, you quoted me.

Fri 20-Dec-19 23:03:01

And no, much as I like Barbara she and I are not in fact evil twins.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 21/12/2019 00:58

Can I self identify as a lawyer? I watched an episode of Ally McBeal once.

Aridane · 21/12/2019 01:04

What this ruling says, using said fake analogy, is that women can of course believe in, and speak about their silly new belief that God doesn't exist (an abstract, not a personal concept), but that if they do, and they lose employment as a result, all good, because the idea that God doesn't exist is not worthy of respect in a democratic society, that the only stance that can be respected in a democratic society is one of fervent belief in God, or, at the outer limits of social acceptability, agnosticism

No - it really didn't.

Religious belief or absence of it , as the judge said, would be a protected characteristic under the EA. Forstater's views on transgender in contrast did not meet the threshold of a 'philosophical belief' and so were not a protected characteristic.