Choreographer Rosie Kay forced to resign from her own company

[peonyred]

This is a share token so you can read the story. Another Janice Turner article. Simone suggested Crowdfunding for her new company.

Rosie Kay: I resigned from my own dance company after I was accused of transphobia

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3935bc4a-5858-11ec-a3f7-65d2d47c7fea?shareToken=d4efe0ddb11ede84d52835a0a02d70e3

And how about this for "We don't really know what we want, but what Rosie apologised for was not enough "

That she accepted she had been wrong was appreciated, but several of us felt that her apology was inadequate as it was a copy and paste apology. Everyone received the same apology irrespective of what had been personally addressed to them.

Six people signed the letters. There are 9 cast members according to the times, 6 male, 3 female. I wonder if the other 3 weren't at the party, or were but didn't sign.

It's worth reading the whole blog. I also don't believe that she said some of the things listed, at least in the way that they state. She will have said one thing (we can probably work out what for each) and they heard sonething else much blunter.

She said to the times that she denied the allegations she had seen so I think there is complete disagreement about the basic facts.

It's like a real version of how conversations with tra's on twitter go. If someone says "male ppl as a group pose a greater risk of sexual assault, and lots if women have suffered from male violence and need female only spaces,", they hear "all trans women want to sexually assault women in female spaces". It's bizarre but they do seem to hear this.

At one point they say the men were trying to explain to her that gender is a construct. But she will know this. She will disagree that gender is a part of each individual, rather than an aspect of society. And she will disagree that the construct is so significant that it should supercede sex. So they haven't begun to see where she was coming from have assumed motives based on that.

I am so weary of the "x does not exist" trope

I realised the other day that "denying I exist" is simply the projection of their own way of thinking by an ideology that is entirely predicated on denying that female people exist as a meaningful social class.

So now the plaintiffs are complaining because Ms Kay made the dispute public she "has caused "potential detriment to [their] careers". They didn't think her apology was enough and, in effect, hounded her from her own dance company and now they want to cry victimhood, again?

I hope that any prospective employers think twice about hiring them.

Irony is not lost on this lot is there?

I think it very much is lost, to be honest.

From that post on Medium:

Corrected Statement: Rosie interrogated two non-binary cast members about their Genitalia, pressuring them to confirm ‘what they had’. It was aggressive, objectifying and offensive.

Below is a photo of one of the non binary cast members. Do you think Rosie asked what genitalia they had?

Really?

Because I can tell just by looking at her that's she's female.

This is so wrong and my heart goes out to her. Ballet is tough work, mentally and physically demanding. Her statement about the recent grads makes me fear greatly for their future. For young people who are in the best shape of their peers, they seem to have none of the vigor or stamina of youth.

Then, last summer, as lockdown ended, Kay began to create Romeo + Juliet for the Birmingham Hippodrome. Auditioning a young cast, aged 22-27, she found them troubled. “Covid had lowered their spirits. No one hung out together. They were very disjointed.” They were also inexperienced: several hadn’t even been able to hold their graduate shows. Even so, she felt they didn’t take well to direction from her or appreciate that she was putting them on a big stage

The cast has three female and six male roles. One of the dancers in a male role and one in a female identified as non-binary, although they had auditioned for parts that accorded with their biological sex. Kay says she was happy to use “they” pronouns but “rehearsal is a quick, pressured environment — you need to be raw and instinctual

Do you think Rosie asked what genitalia they had?

I can believe that Ms Kay asked that as a means of challenging someone who claims to be "non-binary". The conversation could easily have gone something like this:

Dancer: I am non-binary.
Kay: Really? Humans are sexually bimodal. Do you have a penis or vagina? If you have a penis you are male; if you have a vagina you are female.

On the topic of how there can be such a basic difference in perception about what was said, I recently fell out with a friend who is never talking to me again because I'm a (quote) 'transphobic bigot.' I had a group conversation involving this friend where I said that I was concerned about self-ID because I was worried that unsavoury men would exploit it as a loophole to gain access to female spaces in order to predate on women. I emphasised that this was not a concern about trans people, but a concern about voyeurs who would take this opportunity with open arms. My so called friend reported to other people that what I had actually said was "trans women are fetishistic perverts who want to gain access to toilets to rape women." I'm not saying that is what happened here, but it is entirely possible that each side thinks the other said totally different things.

I can very much believe that Rosie might have asked what genitals they had but it won’t have been because Rosie actually wanted to know the answer or didn’t already know it. It will have been a rhetorical question in the context of debate, something like ‘look, you’re telling me it’s impossible for anyone to know what gender you are without you telling them. Have you got a penis or a vagina?’ In our world this is a reasonable thing to say. Among the New Victorians oooooh no, that’s harassment!

Oh yes, I can completely see that she asked in a rhetorical way.

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel

I can very much believe that Rosie might have asked what genitals they had but it won’t have been because Rosie actually wanted to know the answer or didn’t already know it. It will have been a rhetorical question in the context of debate, something like ‘look, you’re telling me it’s impossible for anyone to know what gender you are without you telling them. Have you got a penis or a vagina?’ In our world this is a reasonable thing to say. Among the New Victorians oooooh no, that’s harassment!

Yes. That's what I meant - in a rhertorical way.

My daughter is a 2021 graduate. Contracts for 2020 & 2021 grads are like rocking horse shit. In the last few months there have been a resurgence of panto & cruise ship contracts.

But you wouldn’t believe the entitled attitude of some of her peers. They honestly believe the world revolves around them. To be given the opportunity to work with such an amazing choreographer as Rosie and act like this is astounding.

And this was casting for… Romeo and Juliet.

But I've noticed more and more students saying that the mere fact a senior person takes them to their house is 'inappropriate' and dodgy because of a 'power imbalance'. I think this is a real pity. I saw it as a great honour when my academic supervisor invited me to his home for meals. Soon, people in senior positions just won't bother to invite the juniors round anymore in case they randomly decide they feel unsafe.

Yes. When I was a student my professors regularly would invite year groups for dinners, film showings or evening events at their (often very nice because they were early boomers!) houses. They were generous and hospitable. My PhD supervisor invited me often, and I was invited to events at lots of other academics’ houses, same when I studied in the US where they do even more personal entertaining of students, if anything. It was some of the first adult hospitality I experienced where I was treated more like a colleague than a student. In my early career, bosses and managers would often do this too. That used to be normal.

Not so much now. I think a lot of that has to do with economics (I don’t invite students to my house because I’d be embarrassed at how tiny it is compared to most of their parents’ houses, for example! Most of them are a lot more privileged than I am! 😂) But I also would not want to risk being attacked by them. I say very little to them socially these days and keep the interaction strictly professional because I feel vulnerable. It’s a shame really because it would be nicer for them to feel more socially informal with me but I just can’t take that risk 🤷‍♀️

But I've noticed more and more students saying that the mere fact a senior person takes them to their house is 'inappropriate' and dodgy because of a 'power imbalance'

It just shows how naive and inexperienced at adult life they are. When I was a post-graduate, being invited to a professor's home was a special event. It saddens me to think that this kind gesture is now being seen as some kind of power play.

It says more about them. No one made them go.

I see less/no fuss made about gropey tutors and lecturers basically offering grades for sex than I do “ooooooo, she invited us into her home, fed and watered us, spoke to us 😱😱😱and has ideas that we don’t like 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱”

Silly little things. God help them in the real world when they can’t dance anymore and have to get an office job (as soon many dancers, across and singers do).

I’m confused why the offended people complained that they’d been in some way outed or exposed or harmed by Rosie going public? Did they not give their own names out publicly themselves? She didn’t do that.
BBC doesn’t report if the open letter is anonymous or not, but presumably not anon, as they don’t say the authors’ names were withheld:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59584638

Rosie ‘went public’ so after being forced to make a resignation from her own dance company, over some anti-sexist ideas that she’d verbaliised to employees and which they didn’t agree with. But Rosie didn’t name anyone else talking about it, which was the right thing to do.

The BBC report that the offended people have written a public open letter about their upset at Rosie going public about her own experience (…red flag…. WHY SHOULDN’T SHE.? THERE’S A SERIOUS PUBLIC INTEREST FOR ALL WOMEN IN THIS) and some of the offended people have given named identifiable quotes to the BBC setting out how they feel.

So what has happened for them to complain of since the events at the party in question? They (plural they) have given their side of the story which is totally legitimate for them to do (and named her publicly) after Rosie had given her side publicly, (not naming them).
Why would Rosie be wrong for doing that but they are right to do it?

Why would Rosie be wrong for doing that but they are right to do it?

Because they are bullies and cowards.

I realised the other day that "denying I exist" is simply the projection of their own way of thinking by an ideology that is entirely predicated on denying that female people exist as a meaningful social class

Excellent point Blibby I hadn’t looked at it that way. Pure projection. I’d say this also extends to denying that children are a meaningful social class, with different needs and vulnerabilities than adults have got.

Totally different issue but I crossed paths with a new intake of graduates and was lucky to escape with a chat with my manager without further escalation.

When showing them around the department someone asked why certain items were kept in a locked cupboard. I replied "To stop people taking them". There was some brief chatter about the desirability of the items and I doubled down that they are kept in a locked cupboard throughout the hospital. I'm not talking controlled drugs btw.

Anyway they complained that I had made them feel "unsafe" "unwelcome" in their new job, that people might think them dishonest and so on.

It's like they all read from the same hymn sheet, with their talk of being unsafe etc.

Apart from anything else, they had done clinical placements at the hospital. They must realise a lot of things are kept in locked cupboards? From CD's, to loo roll to our lockers where we keep our possessions. Surely the reason for keeping all these items under lock and key is to stop people taking them? As well as some items that are restricted for safety reasons.

Anyway I took it as a warning, I keep conversation bland when among the young ones.

It's not normal to expect people to pussyfoot around an ideology that they absolutely think is one hundred percent detrimental to them, not to mention contrary to reality itself

^What Datun said. Why should women be expected to collude in their own oppression?

I’d say this also extends to denying that children are a meaningful social class, with different needs and vulnerabilities than adults have got.

I meant this as a view of the TRA lobby in general or of that political genderist worldview in general because of the policies that they advocate for in response to gender distress around children. I don’t attribute any view on children, to any individual person involved here in this specific incident, I don’t have any special insight to know what they think.

Anyway I took it as a warning, I keep conversation bland when among the young ones.

That story is doing my head in even thinking about it. You can hardly keep the conversation any blander than factually and neutrally answering a question you were directly asked. What were you supposed to say? Argh.

So Rosie's comments to the dancers were (according to the dancers) micro agressions.

I wonder what the term for their retaliation is? A macro aggression? The way they tapped into the general structural oppression of women by going behind Rosie's back and leveraging the power to push Rosie out? How very gender binary of them.

Can't believe they've rebranded hospitality as a power imbalance. Why would anyone choose to be around these horrible individuals?