Secondary school assistant sacked after posting petition against transgender issues being taught at her son's CofE primary

[TimeLady]

Devoutly Christian secondary school assistant, 43, is sacked after posting petition against transgender issues being taught at her son's CofE primary

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6925837/School-assistant-43-sacked-posting-petition-against-transgender-teaching-sons-school.html

Are you suggesting that being a transphobe is okay?

That would depend on your definition. If you do not agree TWAW then that is widely considered transphobic.

If you do not agree TWAW then that is widely considered transphobic

It might be, but most people who don't think TWAW would describe themselves as gender critical, not as transphobes.

Yes, I think it must have been taken down .. there is nothing for it on the Citizen Go web site. Maybe that petition I linked is its replacement?

The one you linked has been up since November 2018

I don't know how CitizenGo works whether duplicate petitions are disencouraged

It could I presume also have been taken down for other reasons including breaching the standards of the site?

The wording of the one which seems to have been shared by the TA has wording which reflects specific campaigns.

Actually she was also talking about trans.

It might be, but most people who don't think TWAW would describe themselves as gender critical, not as transphobes.

That’s not relevant though, as we’ve seen lots of organisations and indeed schools, think gender critical people are transphobes so if we were to post GC articles and were teachers, we could be fired too. That’s someone’s point earlier, that if we allow employers to control social media this way, not many of us would be free to post views that were not ‘liberal’ or mainstream approved.

It would depend on the nature of the gender artificial articles. I frequently post and say GC stuff, my employer is not only aware of this, they join in the discussion.

Some people may conflate being GC with being transphobic,but the two things are not the same.

And that poster did not mention GC, they said transphobes, which is an odd thing to say, and why I queried it.

It might be, but most people who don't think TWAW would describe themselves as gender critical, not as transphobes.

My whole point is that in the current climate you lose the 'right' to self-identify (oh, the irony). As a Christian I must submit myself to your label 'bigot' You have a lot of labelling power because this happens to line up with the prevailing ideology. But if you express gc views, you must submit to the label transphobe if you should find yourself in front of an employment tribunal that uncritically subscribes to trans ideology. In this instance, the balance of power is not in your favour.

clitherow

I have no labelling power, I'm just a random on the internet. As a Christian, you don't need to submit yourself to anything, you aren't St. Cyprian.

There is a difference between being gender critical - ie: critiquing gender structures and the detrimental effect they have on individuals and societies as a whole from a feminist perspective, and being transphobic - ie: belittling, hating, denigrating trans people. It's entirely possible to the former without resorting to the latter. Lots of trans people do it themselves.

I am very surprised that many posters think social media clauses are an acceptable requirement for teachers and teaching assistants.

Are not the vast majority of teachers and teaching assistants female? Are you happy for our sisters to all to be denied rights to online activism?

This teaching assistant is also a mother and was objecting to the content of RSE teaching and requesting she be allowed to withdraw her children from those specific lessons.

She lost her job because she sought democratic support for her view point.

She lost her job because she sought democratic support for her view point.

Yes exactly. That’s not ok with me.

Are not the vast majority of teachers and teaching assistants female? Are you happy for our sisters to all to be denied rights to online activism?

No one is denying 'our sisters' the right to online activism, it's just that there is a world of difference between activism and bigotry. And it isn't very feminist to think that women should be given some kind of protection against being held responsible for openly publishing bigoted views. In fact, that would be quite belittling.

She lost her job because she sought democratic support for her view point

You could say the EDL are simply seeking democratic support, but you'd have to be a massive racist to think that.

I agree with you Saskia - if course there’s a difference between GC views and transphobia. I just wish I could have confidence that that is the prevailing consensus. I really don’t think it is.

It would depend on the nature of the gender critical articles.

Well yes it would, and while you differentiate accurately between being GC and transphobic, institutions and businesses often do not. Your employer may be ok with it, but others would see any GC articles as transphobic and potentially fire people. That’s why this is a slippery slope.

That’s why this is a slippery slope.

Exactly

That person over there expresses religious / ideological views that I personally disagree with. She is a hateful bigot who deserves to be fired.

I also hold religious / ideological views that many people disgree with. However I am just exercising my right to freedom of speech and belief. You can’t call me a bigot and of course I shouldn’t be fired.

I would also say, Billy Vunipola’s post is not worthy of a breach of contract either and he has also been given a formal warning. Go and look at it on Instagram. He should absolutely have a right to post what he did, even though I disagree with it, this is getting insane.

FishFace2019 In my experience - so obviously, only anecdotal - if you step away from social media and certain click-bait publishing papers, there is a consensus. People do understand the difference.

JessicaWakefieldSV what are thinking of when you say gc articles, because I have a feeling we aren't talking about the same thing.

IdaBWells - Yes you can be sacked if you put something out on social media which can have an effect on the employer, or business people can lose trust in you. Recently a soap star in the uk lost her job last week because of her posting racist and homophobic comments on Twitter going back 6 years ago. It came to light and her employer sacked her because of that. I hop the staff at school wins her case she’s only standing up for her son. I personally think kids should be kids let them play. They will learn about things when they are at a age to understand the world better. I know people are looking at leaving the uk because of this.

No one is denying 'our sisters' the right to online activism, it's just that there is a world of difference between activism and bigotry

Social media clauses deny those who sign them, as a condition of their employment, the right to any form of online activism their employer regards problematic. So yes, they do prevent online activism to women, disproportionately, in a political world which men dominate.

Also, one persons bigotry is another’s core belief. I believe sex to be an immutable characteristic, that one cannot change sex, and that women deserve and need single sex spaces.

Were I to campaign for the right to withdraw my child from RSE, because of my GC beliefs, would I also deserve to be sacked? Or is it only Christians who do..

That person over there expresses religious / ideological views that I personally disagree with. She is a hateful bigot who deserves to be fired.

No, that's not how it works. Speaking as an individual, I disagree with people often. I disagree with Kenneth Clark, and my friend Helen, and Gary Linekar, I don't believe any of those people are bigots because they support the Tories/listen to jazz/support Leicester FC. Bigotry is the expression of views that diminish and other certain groups of people based on innate characteristics. It's sexism, racism, homophobia, disablism, and it is not simply a matter of opinion. It' s nasty, damaging and insidious.

because I have a feeling we aren't talking about the same thing

Yes we are. I’m talking about intelligent and thoughtful but deliberately truthful articles. Including articles that appear here on MN, which would be removed if transphobic.

I am very surprised that many posters think social media clauses are an acceptable requirement for teachers and teaching assistants.

Are not the vast majority of teachers and teaching assistants female? Are you happy for our sisters to all to be denied rights to online activism?

Social Media guidelines are as much about protecting professionals
Not least from being targetted for harrassment/false allegations etc

Saying transwomen should not compete in women's sports -transphobia
Using dictionary definition adult human female -transphobic
Anything that challenges Stonewall's position - transphobic

It's sexism, racism, homophobia, disablism, and it is not simply a matter of opinion. Yes I agree with that to a point but now we have a far lower bar of 'offence' and this is the problem. People feel unable/afraid to express their feelings/views because of the complaint that may follow and be accepted without question. We have seen that slide with 'hate incidents'. It's insidious and counterproductive.