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

I'd be careful arguing the case for "biological reality" to be the benchmark though, because there is a much stronger case for a biological component to gender than most of us think.

Such as what?

As a woman I don't appreciate being used as a shield for bigotry

What bigotry are you talking about. What I see are people stating that you can't change sex and sex specific spaces are important for women in specific instances. Is that bigotry?

To all those urging us not to confuse the two entirely separate organisations. It would appear from this Twitter user's experience with them that the UK-based MS Society is equally ideologically captured, even if it hasn't been caught out actually mistreating its volunteers.

https://twitter.com/CrochetLady15/status/1673321454794842117

Right wing????

Well no, her actual words in an actual video.

You can make up all sorts of shite, doesn't mean it actually happened.

I'm not going to give you an exhaustive list of examples of bigotry and it wouldn't actually be relevant to what I wrote.

Stop speaking for all women as if we don't each have our own opinions. People who disagree with you are not all anti-woman and plenty of us are fellow women speaking about what's actually important to us.

I'm not going to give you an exhaustive list of examples of bigotry and it wouldn't actually be relevant to what I wrote.

Well can you give me one example? When debating subjects, it is considered good form to support your points with evidence, rather than just throw out insults.

What I see are people stating that you can't change sex and sex specific spaces are important for women in specific instances. Is that bigotry?

And, as I asked, is this bigotry?

Gender Critical Brigade - tellers of the truth and factual information not fairytales

Transphobes - see above description

It's an opinion that I don't agree with and don't want to be associated with just because I'm a woman.

It's an opinion that I don't agree with

Which bit?

🙄

I'm done. My point was that women don't all agree with you and no one is entitled to speak for all of us as a collective. Parsing out our specific points of disagreement would change absolutely nothing about that and I'm not interested in following you down that tangent.

Parsing out our specific points of disagreement would change absolutely nothing about that and I'm not interested in following you down that tangent.

I'm not sure what's so difficult though. If you don't agree with it, surely you can articulate why?

So, which is it ... you don't agree that people can't change sex ... or you dont agree that women should have rights to sex specific spaces.

It's not a difficult question. Which one is it? Or both?

You're not listening. You are risking breaking the law and if someone takes you to court, you will indeed 'put the organisation in a position that leaves it open to prosecution' if you break the law. Discriminating against someone, whether staff, volunteer or service user, because they have a protected characteristic, is against the law. You are mixing up the Equality Act with risk assessment and safeguarding.

'So we are in a scenario whereby there is supposed to be no hierarchy of protected characteristics, but there simply has to be for a number of reasons'.. No. That is against the law. There is no hierarchy of PCs, that is the law. You don't get to decide that a person with the PC of age outranks a person with the PC of religion, or whatever. You have to balance the equal rights of people with different PCs. It's non optional to do so. You absolutely have to make risk assessments, which are clear, unbiased and legally defensible, but you cannot discriminate against someone because of their PC.

I couldn't care less whether or not that is a material breach of EA2010 I really don't think you should admit that!

there is no legal compulsion whatsoever upon me to accept any and every volunteer who shows up No of course there isn't, no one is saying you have to take any volunteers who have a PC but who aren't suitable for the role; but there absolutely is a compulsion upon you to not refuse to employ someone (or give a service to someone) because of their PC. A CofE school can require all staff to be respectful of the schools Christian ethos; so they can refuse employment to a Muslim teacher who says they will be teaching the children that Islam is the one true faith. But they cannot refuse employment to a Muslim teacher just for being a Muslim. If you are doing the equivalent of that, you are breaking the law and no matter how good a reason you think you've got, you are risking being taken to court.

Genuinely, I think you are risking what you seek to avoid if you can say I will take the risk that I am in breach of the EA2010 where and when I believe it is absolutely necessary in order to pre-empt any possibility of a further, more damaging breach. It is not for you or any of us to decide to pick and mix what laws to obey, and if you do ,calling it safeguarding will not protect you from the potential 'bringing the org into disrepute, causing a legal shitstorm, losing our contract and losing the service for everyone' that you are trying to avoid. You cannot decide a breach of the EA is more or less damaging - the EA prevents discrimination, both direct and indirect, in the provision of goods and services. It doesn't prevent harm, that's risk assessment and safeguarding.

Keating some people will never answer reasonable questions if it makes them have to articulate specifically why they prioritise emotional responses over material reality.

They cannot answer directly if it means that their position shows direct harm to some people, particularly female people.

I'm sure you can do your own research. It's not something I particularly want to promote.

@nothingcomestonothing

Again, another long reply which I decided not to post, but I'll just ask you what you think it is that an organisation is supposed to do when they carry out a risk assessment, and conclude that is the actual PC itself which poses the unacceptable risk to a vulnerable person?

You can not just ignore that risk.

The reason prosecution is not a concern is because we are operating within the precise remit handed to us by Government, and they are clearly confident that in the event of a legal challenge, they would be able to show precisely why denying someone access to vulnerable individuals after risk assessment was entirely justifiable, even where the conclusion was that the PC of the person in question was the specific reason they posed an unacceptable risk. I'm comfortable with that prospect, and I am comfortable working on those terms. What I am not prepared to do is risk prosecution because I knowingly exposed a vulnerable person to an individual who we felt was unsuitable.

It is not a question of "ranks" or "balancing", it's a simple matter of who poses a potential risk to who, and who I am under obligation to protect. I am not under obligation to explain to any volunteer precisely why they are rejected.

This!!

Please people, do not write to the UK MS Society about an issue in America totally unrelated to them….

What twaddle! The principle is simple. If you don’t agree with what a charitable organisation is doing then you don’t donate. Unfortunately a lot of these organisations have forgotten why they exist in the first place.

Fired a volunteer of 60 yrs over pronouns. How stupid. I won't ever donate to MS again. I'm 61 and I didn't know what she got fired for. I thought what is a pronoun after a name. I Google it. How stupid. Who cares? If someone gets upset over a 90 year old lady doing that, they sure do not have much going on in their lives. Who cares, big deal. There are way more important things to worry about. Get a life.

I don't think you understand the difference between equality law, risk assessment, and safeguarding. No one expects you to ignore risk, because the person posing the risk has a PC, that's not what the law says and it's worrying you think it is. But there is no PC which, in and if itself, poses a risk to a vulnerable person. So saying 'denying someone access to vulnerable individuals after risk assessment was entirely justifiable, even where the conclusion was that the PC of the person in question was the specific reason they posed an unacceptable risk' makes no sense. If you have a risk assessment which says 'the reason I am refusing employment to person X is because of their age/ sex/ race/ religion or belief/ disability/ pregnancy or maternity/ gender reassignment/ marriage or civil partnership/ sexuality' you are handing that person grounds to take you to court and win, on a plate. If those things aren't the reason, then their PC isn't the reason and the Equality Act isn't relevant to the decision.

they would be able to show precisely why denying someone access to vulnerable individuals after risk assessment was entirely justifiable, one would hope so yes even where the conclusion was that the PC of the person in question was the specific reason they posed an unacceptable risk no, illegal.

If you genuinely think that you are in the right regarding equality law, maybe email this to your funders and trustees on Monday: I will take the risk that I am in breach of the EA2010 where and when I believe it is absolutely necessary in order to pre-empt any possibility of a further, more damaging breach. And if they are happy with your approach too, you won't get any panicked phone calls from the legal department.

Anyone running a service with vulnerable service users and volunteers needs a grasp of employment law, equality law, risk assessment and safeguarding. Stating that you will break the law of you decide it's necessary should prick everyone's ears up.

There's a lot of victim blaming on here (ok a lot of it from the same poster who seems to be reading a remarkable back story into this - I'm waiting for the next episode when we discover our 90 year old volunteer was a murderer on the side).

The article does tell us what she said. It looks like a genuine question to me and I find it appalling and utterly unjustified that she should be let go after 60 years of service.

I think the US MS Society will regret this (insane) move. We white haired women are the mainstay of charitable donations and volunteering.

I hope the UK MS Society doesn't get hit by the fallout, though it looks like it already has.

Yes I was being sarcastic.

So that’s the gratitude and thanks a 90 year old women who has given 60 years of her time gets. 😡