To agree with JK Rowling?

[StraightenUpAndFryRight]

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’

Tell Murray to stop calling women cunts.

I have no acquaintance with Murray, and I don't use social media, so telling them anything is outside my power. However, I don't agree with anyone calling anyone else a cunt, regardless of sex/gender identity. Murray, if you're reading, please take note.

Agree that female victims of violence should not have to put their attackers dignity before the evidence of their own two eyes.

I agreed with this about five pages ago. Again, RTFT.

Denounce book burning, and the absolutely vicious abuse that JKR has received.

I don't agree with book burning or vicious abuse in any circumstances. I own books by all sorts of people whose moral views I radically disagree with, because the books are interesting/entertaining/educational. I'm not a particular fan of JKR's books so don't own any, but if someone gave me one I'd simply pass it onto a charity shop.

But even in my older, somewhat less naive days, I'm still flabbergasted that many people think that one of the things that women aren't supposed to say, and should lose their jobs for saying, (because some men don't like it) is that sex is real.

As JK pointed out :
#thisisnotadrill

Nun if you agree that women shouldn't have to call their male attackers 'she', then you are also reserving the right for women to refuse to use preferred pronouns when it is an assult on THEIR dignity, just like Maya.

So God only know what your actual argument against JK standing with Maya is.

Brain washing en mass is exactly what trans activists are doing and exactly what your advocating for by pushing lying just to be nice to the menz feelz.

Curious, Nun, if I worked for Pips, would you agree that I should be sacked if I fail to call him a woman and use she/her pronouns on the days he comes in dressed in clothes and makeup which are stereotypically feminine ?

What if I told you if offends my dignitity as a woman, to have to pretend that a cross dressing man, who presents as male when it suits him, is actually a woman ? What if it distressed me, as a subordinate employee of Pips ? Should I still be sacked (or not have my contract renewed) for 'failure to comply with compulsory kindness'?

What if I worked with Murray, and he became aware that I had GC views outside of the workplace, and called me a TERF cunt on Twitter ? Should I still be required to respect his dignity and call him 'they' at all times ?

What if I told you I was distressed that a man exhibiting so much hatred of women was telling me how to speak ? Does that matter ?

Surely, you cannot be asserting that at all times in the workplace, it is appropriate for women to subordinate themselves in the interest of 'kindness' to males ?

So God only know what your actual argument against JK standing with Maya is.

Because Maya made her statement without qualification.

"I reserve the right to misgender individuals who have forfeited their right to courtesy through criminal conduct" - reasonable statement.

"I reserve the right to misgender individuals" - unreasonable statement.

Also, employers should have the right to dismiss people whose views they find morally abhorrent and who express those views publicly.

A genuine question - supposing you employed someone, let's say, as a cleaner (I am not assuming in a privileged way, that everyone can afford a cleaner - I can't, in fact my husband works as a cleaner, but I am choosing this as an example) and your cleaner turned out to be a passionate transactivist, who shared their views with you - would you keep them on? What if your cleaner was strongly racist, or homophobic? What if your cleaner was transphobic, and you had a daughter who was transitioning to become a transman?

What if I told you if offends my dignitity as a woman

To be honest, I'd tell you that if offended dignity was your biggest problem in life, you were a fortunate individual.

What if I worked with Murray, and he became aware that I had GC views outside of the workplace, and called me a TERF cunt on Twitter ?

I'd tell you to seek advice from ACAS, if your HR department wasn't able to deal with the issue of one employee calling another a 'cunt'.

What if I told you I was distressed that a man exhibiting so much hatred of women was telling me how to speak ? Does that matter ?

I'd be asking for examples of the 'hatred' and pursuing it through the appropriate channels, assuming this was a workplace scenario. It would sound like disciplinary proceedings were in order, if one colleague was expressing hatred to another.

if offended dignity was your biggest problem in life, you were a fortunate individual

Ironic. I can assure you I have bigger problems in my life than Pips bloody Bunce does.

Also, employers should have the right to dismiss people whose views they find morally abhorrent and who express those views publicly

I disagree with you entirely. A sports reporter where I live (AU) was fired from his job because he tweeted pro-left, anti-war sentiment on Anzac Day.

His employers found this 'morally abhorrent' for him to express 'anti-war sentiments. That's not OK. Man loses job for expressing opinion. No. Just no. Workers are entitled to opinion, and expression of such, and as long as they continue to perform their job adequately, employers should have no such right to sack them.

For the same reason, I do not believe Israel Folau should have been sacked, even though I abhor his religious views. His views did not prevent his ability to play on his team and perform at football (indeed, half the team hold similar views to Folau).

I don't care if your politics are left or right, if your opinion does not directly incite violence, and does not impact on your ability to do your job, I can see no good reason for employers to sack and employee. You do realise this 'right' could be used against transpeople, don't you ?

So far as my hypotherical cleaner who retweets JKR and tells me she doesn't think women can change into men goes, when considering my actual transmasc daughter...so what ? Her beliefs don't make my daughter unsafe. I am not paying her to have any particular beliefs. She isn't inciting violence. Her beliefs don't impact on her ability to vacuum under my lounge.

I don't know why you'd think, Nun, that I haven't thought about my position, and thought about it in the context also of having gender dysphoric kids. It's possbile to have come to an ethical viewpoint around freedom of speech, workers' rights, women's rights and trans people's experiences, that differs radically, but no less genuinely, from your assertion that people (women) in the workplace must be compelled to utter courtesies to others in their workplace, even if that places them in the position of uttering untruths.

Forstater was not an employee and did not get fired (she was a consultant). This is not an unfair dismissal case. Although this has been reported as such. And quite a bit of the discussion here also makes that assumption.

She made an application for a further consultancy position and this was declined. She alleged direct discrimination because of 'philosophical belief'. Tribunal held her beliefs did not amount to a 'philosophical belief'.

In legal terms, it is like any other person applying for a position or their consultancy position (non employee status) not being extended and alleging any other form of direct discrimination - eg race discrimination, sex discrimination, religious discrimination.

So the tribunal did not rule upon the reasonableness of CGD in how they dealt with Forstater, just with whether she met the threshold for having a 'philosophical belief'.

I think this is a material difference from a legal perspective (although I appreciate others will not think so).

What if your cleaner was transphobic, and you had a daughter who was transitioning to become a transman?

Is the cleaner in this example male or female? If male then no-one would bat an eyelid. As people are only concerned with silencing women to protect 'hurty male feelz'.

If female that muddies the waters a bit. On one hand they would now want to silence the cleaner because she is a woman, but on the other hand it is not to protect male feelings, but female feelings. So perhaps they would just flip a coin to see whether the cleaner gets sacked?

To be honest, I'd tell you that if offended dignity was your biggest problem in life, you were a fortunate individual.

Yet you've tried to derail the entire thread by claiming that hurty mail feelz trump female rights.

When I was on last night you bid us all good night, but seems you couldn't resist Nun

Haven't managed to reeducate anyone yet have you though?

Sending Maya and JKR more support today for their courage and conviction.

aridane

Yes I agree legally it is totally relevant. I don’t think the decision means you can be fired for being GC. My opinion is that it should have been found to be a philosophical belief, and the judge’s concerns (well founded or not) about what she said on Twitter should have gone to whether the decision was justified.

Had it been an unfair dismissal case, then Maya’s employers would need to show the dismissal was for a fair or potentially fair reason. Here maybe they’d say it was conduct, but they’d have to show it was reasonable to dismiss for that reason.

Whereas Maya needed to bring her claim within the equality act as she was not employed, and that’s what she failed to do.

If someone was literally fired for privately holding gender critical views, I cannot see any tribunal finding that reasonable. If it was because they expressed GC views, I would hope that the dismissal would be unfair but this would be subject to exactly what and when was said.

I agree.
How can you not?

For example, some women are afforded more rights in the workplace than others because they've had children. Others, who haven't, are marginalised.

You what? Do you have any idea about the number of women who are sacked for being pregnant? Or that the "gender" pay gap is largely a motherhood pay gap?

I completely agree with JK and applaud her.

So the tribunal did not rule upon the reasonableness of CGD in how they dealt with Forstater, just with whether she met the threshold for having a 'philosophical belief'.

Agree - but it is the judge's reasoning on why this isn't a philosophical belief that seems wrong.

You know what ? I don't bloody care if Maya was a contracter or not. No, scrap that, I actually care more!

Half the women I know are on contracts - why ? Easier for their employers, isnt it ? Let's the employers be 'flexible'. Most of us on contracts rely on our contracts being renewed, subject, of course, to performing the tasks required of us to a satisfactory level.

Not renewing a contract may not be the same in law as being fired, but it's functionally the same. Woman has no work, no income.

The workplace cannot own us 24/7. I suggest if workplaces are to be allowed to sack, fire or not renew contracts on the grounds of 'morals expressed outside of work', that they stop this business of putting people on contracts, make them permanemt, with the entitlements that come from that, and pay them for the hours they own their employees 'morals' out of work.

and your cleaner turned out to be a passionate transactivist, who shared their views with you - would you keep them on?

I think that is an interesting legal question (particularly if you substitute religion for transactivism), but not really comparable because sex based rights and statistical classification of women are subjects relevant to Maya's field of work.

if offended dignity was your biggest problem in life, you were a fortunate individual

But MF lost her cast because her beliefs were apparently "incompatible with the dignity and rights of others", so apparently dignity is important.

@Nunsnetting surly the fact that she will 'reserve the right to misgender individuals who have forfeited their right to courtesy through criminal conduct' is implied when she says 'I reserve the right to misgender individuals'. There is no implication in what she said that she would not use common sense to when or when not to misgender someone. If I say 'i reserve the right to be polite to people' rather then 'i am polite to people provided they are decent human beings' would you assume that there will be decent humans I am not polite to?

@Nunsnetting sorry should say impolite. Typo on my part

The judge does address the views held though, not just either they are a "philosophical belief"- her views (and 94% of MNs) are "not worthy of respect in a democratic society."

I mean, let's be frank - the judge has said that the view of how biological sex works held by most people is "not worthy of respect in a democratic society". Which is why this case has caused such an uproar. Because that is an absurd statement.

Not renewing a contract may not be the same in law as being fired, but it's functionally the same. Woman has no work, no income.

For these purposes it is the same as if she was employed with under two years service.

I'm openly GC at work and locally and our previous babysitter was very active in the local Queer group, going to conferences etc. They were lovely (presented as masculine but I think sadly female and on hormones). They didn't bring their beliefs to work and were part of the family. If they had thought of talking to my DCs about it that would have been different. I think actually they were just confused about what being gender non conforming could look like, they were very young and I hoped we could be there for them no matter what.