Civil servant given warning after ‘inappropriately’ saying there are two sides to the trans debate

[IwantToRetire]

Work and pensions official investigated and found guilty of breaching department’s behaviour policy and rules on harassment

Among the remarks made by the civil servant, and branded as “inappropriate comments relating to trans women” by a DWP investigator, were the comments: “One of the things I struggle to understand as a lesbian myself is, how can trans women be lesbian as lesbian is same sex attracted, not gender?”, “I find the term cis very offensive”, “Sport is segregated because there is a difference” and “What if you don’t believe in gender? I don’t”.

Discussing the comment, “It’s useful to hear both sides of a subject,” a DWP investigator claimed that the “event did not appear to be a forum designed to generate debate on both sides of the subject” and therefore it was “inappropriate” and made in the wrong context.

The department’s investigation led to an official warning against the civil servant.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/06/civil-servant-warning-inappropriate-trans-debate/

On first reading I thought this is clearly against the now legally established right to the belief in sex being a biological reality.

On re-reading I still see that but would also say that it is homophobic of whoever accused her, because she was making statement about her protected characteristic of being same sex attracted.

Article can be read at https://archive.ph/c043P

This more of the nonsense we have to live with.

What a shit show of a world we live in.
Disgraceful.

Well now there is more clear evidence, if any is needed that the Civil Service is well and truly captured and stating the obvious gets punished.

Outrageous!

Very unsurprised. My CS Department has three blogs on the intranet for IWD, two written by trans women. Lots of “brave” inclusion speak.

How can these generic statements be harrassment? How are they any worse than a vegan saying that in their opinion, animals should not be killed for meat or a catholic saying they do not agree with the use of contraception?

I hope this person is taking action.

The civil servant’s comment that “I think IWD should centre [on] women really” was found “to exclude trans women from the relevance of International Women’s Day” and was therefore inappropriate.

So... How dare women think IWD should be centred on women!

Who were the comments made to? Does it say

The extent of control over speech is scary

I know it's a bit off topic but our inclusion network is run by a man so IWD was all about women in sport, women challenging stereotypes...all stuff we got lectured on in schools. He was wondering why women weren't interested. I'm too new to comment, but thought I'd be much more interested in issues that impact most women: balancing work and caring, menopause, money matters...

And of course, it was all for anyone who identifies... I reckon questions about that would get me fired.

Madness. I hope they are taking action. There can't be any way in which this is legal.

I hope so too, and that this why it is appearing in the paper. That person was accused of being a t**f and should bring a counter complaint for that.

I hope this blows up royally.

I skimmed through the article last night and from memory it relates to a Zoom call or workshop in 2021. Was that before the Forstater judgement? One would hope that the HR departments in Whitehall are aware that it is now a protected characteristic under the Equality Act to believe that sex is real and immutable, on the grounds that this is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society. I still find it incredible that this was the way Maya's legal team had to fight her case. It's like having to spell out that you can't be sacked for saying that the Earth goes round the Sun, or that gravity exists. But they were very astute in seeing that getting this biological reality recognised in a court of law would have very far-reaching consequences, which I hope this unfortunate woman can now make use of.

Two good things:
the woman felt free to say what she said.
The Telegraph has shone a light on it. (Will the CS want to go through a shit show and take things further?)

It is bad, but these things will keep happening and we WILL keep fighting.
My organisation quietly sacked Stonewall a few years ago. Now we have all the different groups on our intranet. Of course, except a womens' group.
I and 2 other colleagues were agitating (basically taking over the meeting and derailing, heh heh) during a Gender Inclusive group meeting asking why and getting lame answers by handmaidens.
We are all pushing in our different ways and this woman was at least supported by the official. I hope both of them are left alone now having done some good by speaking the truth.
If the CS pursue this, all the more publicity.

I skimmed through the article last night and from memory it relates to a Zoom call or workshop in 2021. Was that before the Forstater judgement?

Maya has tweeted that yes, it happened before the judgement. So presumably (I'm not a lawyer as you can tell)) this means it can't be applied here?

https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1743753679109288389

The Civil Service have been totally captured by some very dubious trans activists for so long. This was some years ago but a woman civil servant posted on here after "training" where women were instructed that if they entered the women's toilets to find a man who claims to be a woman in there, they must not leave as that is transphobic but must enter and use the facilities!!

The extreme levels of coercive control exhibited in order to force women to behave as required is off the scale, yet nearly 5 years we're still having to battle these extreme levels of male control over women and our behaviour:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3520371-civil-service-trans-policy-what-can-i-do

Jesus, Mary, Joseph & the contents of the stable 🤦‍♀️

Do we know when the (final) outcome of the investigation was? The Forstater Decision was published 10/06/21; IWD is the 8th of March. So if the CS investigation & decision & any appeal process took just over 3 months (which doesn’t seem like a wildly overlong timescale but I may be completely wrong!) they should have instantly course-corrected on publication of judgement. Moot if it took a weekend to brand the poor woman a big evil TERFy transphobe, of course, but do we know if Maya’s been in contact to confirm the timings; or has just worked on “March is before June & time is linear”?

The absolute effrontery of using IWD to lecture staff about trans[womens’] issues. Epitome of No Debate 🙄 Any of the many Trans Awareness/Remembrance/etc Days/Weeks/Months would’ve been the time; & they still would’ve needed to cope with the reality that not everyone was going to fall over themselves to be accepting let alone applaud “The Most Vulnerable In Society”.

Absolutely bananas decision straight from an Opposite Day, where it’s fine for people to use a deliberately inflammatory & insulting term but “shouting” back is punishable. If there’s no option to italicise, it’s how you show emphasis; & if anyone is genuinely scared/distressed by ALL CAPS they are very very unwell & should not have been present on the call.

I am also not a lawyer but I would think Forstater could be applied. If you think about it Maya lost her job in 2019 (I think it was then) and the court didn’t decide her appeal until 2021 so the protection was retrospective.

But this woman may not be able to claim anyway if there are time limits on making a claim.

Also that Rachel Meade case was pre the Maya judgment iirr.

Why is it being reported on now? Has it just come to light?

Maybe it’s a case of the woman finally feeling brave enough to speak out. Perhaps her circumstances have changed and she’s no longer in fear of losing her livelihood.

Without a doubt its being reported on ow because the Torygraph is throwing everything at this issue now that the election has been semi-announced as it dies something to shore up the Tory vote, and also for clicks.

Which doesn't mean it wasn't a story at the time, at least. Poor woman. I'm not a subscriber, does it say anything about what has happened since?

Workplaces are so uneven.

I know this was online but I look at the result of these outcomes and I'm at a loss as to why so many people affect not to understand the popularity of WFH to avoid such interactions with colleagues like this.