To think sacking this volunteer to a U.S charity was a complete over reaction (Title edited by MNHQ at request of OP)

[HermioneWeasley]

The MS society in America has dismissed a 90 year old woman who has volunteered for them for SIXTY YEARS because she raised a question about pronoun use in emails.

they have doubled down on this decision issuing the following statement

“Recently, a volunteer, Fran Itkoff, was asked to step away from her role because of statements that were viewed as not aligning with our policy of inclusion.”

how can the people running these organisations be so out of touch with how people feel about these issues? They’re insane and frankly
cruel.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13088453/ms-society-slammed-firing-elderly-volunteer-pronouns.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top

Great to see so many of you have fallen for the 'Daily Hates' latest installment of Culture Wars.

Honestly, this is one vague incident in a shop in America. Why do you think it warrants a news story here?

I’m 65 , wouldn’t have a clue what this means either.
Does it mean I put at the end of my emails From Susie Smith (Ms) ?
I can’t think of anything else I could put.
Can anyone enlighten me ?

I think I remember a story similar to this that was in Oxfam here in the UK. Does anyone else remember?

FGS, what the hell has age got to do with this???

Sorry, no.

Why do you suspect this? I see more evidence that she was unfairly dismissed than the contrary.

It's dreadful but no more dreadful than the people who refused to take blood from a man who had been donating blood for about 25 years because he refused to state his preferred pronoun. Utter madness wokery.

No. The most recent example I can think of is an individual who eventually revealed that they were largely sceptical of Mental Illnesses being a reality, and was of the opinion that they were mostly a figment of imagination.

Is that a WORIADS? Who knows? There doesn't appear to be any reference for what precisely is or is not a WORIADS, and it's certainly in no way illegal to hold that opinion. In any case, I'm not taking the chance that this individual can remain objective when meeting with Service Users who have the Protected Characteristic of Disability due to lifelong, profound Mental Health diagnoses. So despite passing DBS and undergoing training, we unanimously agreed they were not suited to being a volunteer within the organisation and rejected them.

Oh apologies the Oxfam one wasn't a question about pronouns. It was a question on the intranet about what JK Rowling did that warranted a fellow co-worker asking if Oxfam should ban JK Rowling products.

https://unherd.com/2023/06/i-quit-oxfam-over-jk-rowling/

So, not the same, but similar in that it was a question caused a 'older' (not my description) female volunteer to be investigated and caused her a great deal of stress.

@notknowledgeable please don’t withdraw your support from the MS Society who have nothing to do with the US National MS Society. And actually please don’t withdraw your support from them either - you are only hurting people with MS who have no involvement in this row whatsoever.

This is who I sent it to, might not be the best address to send it to though, you might be able to find a manager email or similar - that would be better Supporter Care Team <[email protected]>

Fucks sake @notknowledgeable this is nothing to do with the UK MS Society. Can you all start actually reading the posts on this thread - this is NOT ABOUT THE UK MS SOCIETY!!!!!

@nothingcomestonothing

I typed out a long, explanatory response to your concerns about EA2010. I decided not to post it, largely because I felt it's too identifying, but suffice to say, if my org is in breach of EA2010, then we are doing this fully in the knowledge of, and with the whole-hearted approval of, the Local Authority, the NHS, the Scottish Government, and the Intermediary organisation that advises on best practice in the field, as is every single other organisation providing the same service across the nation.

If we're in breach of EA, then I'm at a loss to explain why that has never once been raised as a concern by anyone from any of these organisations and bodies, despite the fact we operate with full transparency in front of them, we operate at their behest and instruction, we report to them continuously, including reporting volunteer numbers and explicit reasons for rejected volunteers, and yet... nada...

The legal protection not to believe in something is incredibly problematic though, and doesn't infer real life credibility to it. The right to not believe in evolution (under the umbrella of religious beliefs) for example.

The right to not believe in gender ideology is currently supported under the right to philosophical beliefs, but, it's a work in progress and they have to be considered in relation to other laws and protections. For example, employment law, anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sex or gender realignment etc.

It's not a "get out of jail free" card for transphobes.

Real life credibility

As in, not believing in biological sex?

It’s not a get out of jail free card for transphobes

Referring to people who believe in biological sex reality again? No worries, if they’re ‘women’ you can punish their nasty biological beliefs by popping them in jail with those new improved women.

The only way to know for sure is to test it in court. I suspect all the organisations you have listed have operated in ways they have believed to have been legal but subsequently through tribunal or court case have been found not to be so. Their opinion is not infallible as is the lack of concern raise by a certain group of staff within these organisations about a particular activity.

Not to say that what you do is in breach of the EA, but just to advise you to continue to consider these issues rather than assuming that others should know better and therefore if they don't raise issues everything is fine.

This is a complex and continually evolving area of application of the Equality Act with new case law that needs to be taken into account. No-one working in areas where they are dealing with the application of the Act should be resting easy or assuming that what they have been doing previously continues to be considered lawful. Test cases have established that GC beliefs are protected now and you need to take that seriously and consider it other similar beliefs are likely to be considered in a similar way or risk a tribunal or similar making that decision for you at your organisations potential cost and reputation.

Agree with all of this 👏

Just to clear something up -

I think whenever I have mentioned "WORIADS" in this thread people have understandably assumed I am talking about explicitly expressed "gender critical" beliefs when I am not.

Just on that point though, look at this from a safeguarding point of view and the position it puts me in. We do have service users who are transgender, so if I have a volunteer who, throughout the training program is explicitly expressing gender critical views, how can I be absolutely certain this individual is a well-intentioned, well-versed person who is solely motivated by concern for women's and children's rights, and is not just an ignorant transphobe?

I can't. It's impossible to be certain, which is why from a safeguarding point of view that individual would definitely be a concern with regard to the possibility of encountering a transgender service user. Their beliefs might well be WORIADS and well intentioned, but assuming good is not a part of safeguarding.

There is Zero evidence that anything else happened before or after her asking 'whats the pronouns thing about'.

My granny at 90 was sharp witted enough to invent several sides of salmon and joints of beef when her outhouse freezer was broken into.
I suspect her innocent questioning was poisonously loaded.
See that Miriam Margoyles clip about pronouns.

YABU if you think the daily mail or social media has given you the full, unbiased story 🙄

I have no idea if the MS Society has erred in this individual situation or not, but the attempt to turn it into an international crisis because it involved pronouns is pathetic.

@DistinguishedSocialCommenator

Because all this navel gazing shit is recent and why should she be expected to understand let alone participate in such utter fucking nonsense?

Woman - Adult Human Female

Do you know many 90 year olds?? Because they can be F*** hard work, in my experience. They are set in their ways, usually sexist, and are stubborn to boot.

I can imagine this "sweet old" 90 year old "questioning" it was akin to her being absolutely bigotted and transphobic.

What? I simply pointed out the law and that just because a belief is protected (in this case an unbelief) it can be problematic.

Just because science supports the fact that there are two sexes, and the right to not believe in gender iideology is supported in law, it doesn't necessarily mean you can misgender at work, or whatever. That's just the law.

I don't know what this woman has done.

just because science supports the fact that there are two sexes, and the right to not believe in gender iideology is supported in law, it doesn't necessarily mean you can misgender at work, or whatever. That's just the law.
Do you mean then that your employer can force you to lie about biological reality and engage with someone else's delusions?

I saw the video of her and her daughter discussing it. No daily mail or social media spin. She just literally asked what the pronouns were all about. No death or rape threats, no bomb threats, no misgendering, no doxxing, nothing like it. No nails in the sandwiches, no laxatives in the cake. Nothing else untoward.

If there had been, the charity would I am sure have told us.

So anyone who doesn’t agree with the policy should refuse to donate. Sooner or later they will get the message.