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

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Woman loses job raising concerns about risk assessments and self id

59 replies

RunningWild12 · 17/04/2019 21:01

Really appalling and scary account of a woman losing her job in Scotland due to raising concerns around risk assessment and self id.

“voiced concerns to a colleague about, firstly, the adequacy of assessment of risk that had been carried out in relation to the proposal that 'self-identification' should become the only criterion for biological males to be legally considered females and, secondly, the wisdom of the guidance provided to schools by Education Scotland“

It’s here in full www.scottishreview.net/MMorrison476a.html

OP posts:
vicviking · 19/04/2019 14:02

Thank you trousering. I think you are absolutely right.

vicviking · 19/04/2019 14:03

TRAs want us to be afraid but there really are no grounds for dismissing people for politely expressing gender critical views.

Trousering · 19/04/2019 14:16

www.facebook.com/494295627591295/posts/823422158011972/

Shared by A Woman's Place:

“We will be taking a motion supporting academic freedom to discuss sex and gender to the 2019 University and College Union (UCU) congress next month. While the union has a stated position in favour of academic freedom in general terms, it has shied away from making any statement on the harassment of feminist academics.
Academics who do not adhere to a particular line on gender and transgender issues have suffered intimidation by trans activists, including students and colleagues who seek to silence them.
These scholars have faced campaigns of blacklisting and smears, no platforming and professional disinvitations, organised efforts to get them fired, and rape and death threats. The level of hostility, hatred and often overtly misogynistic bullying faced by these scholars does not compare to anything we have seen in other debates within academia, even the most contentious.
The divide between trans activists and their opponents is a split within the left, rather than a left-right divide. Trade unionist women, led by A Woman’s Place UK, have led grass-roots calls for proper consultation with women regarding proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. They have consistently worked with trans women who share their concerns regarding, for example, same-sex exemptions in the Equality Act, women’s sports and child safeguarding, yet trans activists have attempted to shut down their meetings, using tactics such as bomb threats to venues.
Long-standing gay rights campaigners have demanded that Stonewall reconsider its approach to transgender policy and engage fully in debate on the issue. A recent Open University conference on prison reform was cancelled after being targeted by trans activists because the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies opposed housing trans women with female prisoners.
The UCU has rightly called out threats to academic freedom posed by government interference, but it has not commented on the silencing of dissent on this issue, which has grave potential to damage the wider progressive movement.
This is a difficult issue for the union because activists are divided on the substantive issues. However, the concept of academic freedom is meaningless if it does not extend to those with whom one disagrees. The UCU’s official statement on academic freedom recognises that the issue is bound up with broader civil liberties and human rights, and that academics must be free to express their opinions on matters of public interest, which may touch upon controversial or sensitive topics. This statement is hollow if not applied consistently.
As trade unionists, political activists and critical scholars, we are as equally motivated by a concern for social justice as our critics, though we see the issues differently. We recognise the discrimination faced by trans people and the importance of defending their human rights.
It is a sound principle of both political and academic work that we should listen to the voices of people from marginalised groups when discussing issues that affect them. The language used to define sex and gender, and the implications of these definitions for issues of public policy, including healthcare, education and child safeguarding, affects us all.
It is thus misleading to construe disagreements on these issues as a debate between “feminists” and “trans people”. Indeed, trans people who have asserted that “gender identity” does not supersede biological sex and should not replace sex as a protected characteristic have also faced bullying by activists. A culture of silencing is dangerous and counterproductive, particularly for vulnerable groups. This has been exposed most sharply by recent resignations from the Tavistock Gender Identity Clinic of doctors concerned about the hormonal and surgical procedures offered to children.
In the current climate, even articulating any of the following points as a basis for discussion can lead to accusations of transphobia, and to bullying and harassment: Humans have two sexes, male and female; females are the sex that produce large immobile gametes called ova; males are the sex that produce small mobile gametes called sperm; women are adult human females; women do not have penises; homosexuality is same-sex attraction; a transwoman who transitions as an adult has not always been female.
At a time when the recent gains of the feminist movement and the gay rights movement are under attack by the forces of the far right, it is vital to distinguish between those who seek to uphold the rights of all groups who continue to suffer from patriarchal and racist oppression, and those who uphold an explicitly sexist and racist ideology.
Authoritarian anti-intellectualism on the far right is unlikely to be defeated by its mirror image on the left, and we believe that defending academic freedom, while opposing all forms of authoritarian politics, is a basic function of our union.
Alice Sullivan, Judith Suissa, and Lesley Gourlay are professors at the Institute of Education at UCL and Holly Smith is a lecturer at the Institute of Education at UCL.”

Floisme · 19/04/2019 16:05

I thank Trousering for what she does. I thank Maggie for what she did and I thank Mole and all the other posters who spoke up for Maggie.

I thank everyone who puts their head over the parapet and I’m not going to criticise someone if they subsequently feel they have to take cover.

DarkAtEndOfTunnel · 19/04/2019 23:49

What we could really do with... is something like a Women's Equality Party to speak for us, and a network of Women's groups everywhere to seek support from in these cases.

"Don't get mad: get organised"

God I'm so tired of having to fight the same fights over and over again, having to do it elsewhere in rl at the moment.

DarkAtEndOfTunnel · 19/04/2019 23:51

Not that it was me who fought the feminist fights the first time round, just feeling sorry for myself there for a moment Smile.

DarkAtEndOfTunnel · 19/04/2019 23:52

Not that it was me who fought the feminist fights the first time round, just feeling sorry for myself there for a moment Smile.

MoleSmokes · 21/04/2019 21:49

I trust that anyone reading this thread, including "Maggie", will see that

  • the majority of people responding are supportive, reasonable and compassionate
  • that there are women in positions of influence, like @Trousering, who are both willing and able to fight "regulatory capture" and are determined not to back down.

I hope the motion to the University and College Union goes well. The statement above is missing a call to action, as in "We call on the UCU to . . . ", which I appreciate might be a tactical omission at this stage.

Much as I am tactically omitting to respond to negative assumptions about my purpose in posting as I did in support of "Maggie" - so any TRA lurkers who are licking their lips in hope of seeing some feminist fireworks, slink off home, nothing to see here!

Bowlofbabelfish · 24/04/2019 09:04

Thanks trousering. that’s pretty much what I did. In the weekly meeting I popped in a quick thanks to ‘bob’ (not real name) for his dedicated work in other time zones and hoped he wasn’t too tired, blah blah, next agenda point.

Social media is a minefield. Many jobs (my own included) have social media policies which are really unclear. There’s the usual not bringing into disrepute thing, which is fair and reasonable - I wouldn’t be vocally Anti Widget when working for the Widget Company. But then where do we excercise our personal opinions? As private individuals? When we are in a position where expressing and opinion that an existing law should be reviewed for impacts on protected groups gets you threatened with telling your employer you’re a transphobe, something is wrong. Any expression of an opinion is by definition public. When we have so few social media outlets controlling platforms where is it appropriate and inappropriate to express an opinion?

It’s something I feel needs more clarification because at the moment it’s rather like the hate crime laws - anything anyone feels is bad can be made to be bad.

I remember your posts on the legal issue now. An excellent statement.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page