Rachel Meade - it's a win!

[BreadInCaptivity]

x.com/legalfeminist/status/1744697995822526961?s=46&t=88gZvdSnTk70X8b2ZUPZtA

Yes, I must remember to do a bit of gardening. So nice to see the results of all our planting and gardening for Rachel Meade - beautiful foliage and buds popping out all over! - but not quite fully bloomed yet.

The capture goes so deep though. It will take decades of hard work to reverse, and while plenty of proselytisers in positions of power will quietly reverse ferret, there will be a high cost to some who have staked their reality on this ideology.

The misrepresentations of reality have been very successfully embedded in public sector institutions. For instance, last week the all staff email bulletin at work (big NHS Trust) was advertising a session called something like 'building resilience in the LGBTQ+ community in the context of growing health inequalities and hate crime'. No evidence of these growing inequalities and crimes, just the assumption that they exist and people need training to overcome them.

How do you fight an ideology which starts from a position of victimhood and persecution, without being positioned as attacking a vulnerable group? Questioning the oppression is just seen as perpetuating it. Let alone what it must be like for some gender believers to really believe they are in constant danger of attack or even annihilation - I've seen posts online by young transpeople in the US saying things like 'I won't be taken to a camp, I'll kms first', they really believe they are being genocided. The scale of the capture is daunting, and beliefs are much harder to challenge than facts.

I’ve done some gardening as I can’t see WCC and SWE both agreeing a settlement ahead of the hearing.

James Esses managed to settle with United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). As part of that they had to issue a formal statement and I suspect make some fundamental changes.

Rachel is clearly looking to achieve similar and I am not sure SWE in particular will agree.

If they won't agree, the responsible Minister needs to start asking questions. Their stance is clearly counter to both Government policy and recommendations contained in the Cass review.

Vulnerable children are involved. Local authorities, as service providers, will be at risk of future legal action. Bonkers.

@Needmoresleep I was clarifying why Rachel still needs gardening.

The 3 parties Rachel, WCC and SWE can agree a settlement before the remedy hearing. In legal costs this is the cheapest option. If they can’t agree then the remedy hearing will determine the outcome.

So there will be a remedy but no one can say what this will include.

I wasn't arguing with you.

Just exasperated that SWE cannot see the writing on the wall in the way Westminster Council, and the body James Esses was fighting, managed to. SWEs position has to be wrong and both Cass and recent legal decisions highlight this.

Who is advising them....

(Unfortunately I might know the answer.)

(Unfortunately I might know the answer.)

If you're correct, and if there's the usual NDA as to any amount, do we expect it to be described by said person as negligible and indicative of nothing and far from precedent-setting?

Any predictions for weasel-wording and non-apology of any statements?

I've just been out and had a bit of a dig. Lovely weather for gardening - not raining!

This is a star post!

I was once in a church and overheard a heated committee discussion about how the next stage of its re-decoration should go:

'Yes - but is that carpet fitter a Catholic?'

I have often wondered about the differences between Catholic carpet-fitting and non-Catholic carpet-fitting.

A person's beliefs on gender (even if strongly held) are probably not the only important thing about how they do their jobs.

The needs of those looked after by social-workers are not usually anything to do with gender beliefs either.

@LiesDoNotBecomeUs @Froodwithatowel
The GC position is the neutral 'this stuff should be left out of the workplace and clients should not be exposed to anyone's personal beliefs'.

If you think about it for 2 millennia + believing that there are two sexes was the default position. In both law and at work in policies and procedures were based on this default position. It wasn’t discussed or even a factor at work.

Employees worked within the EA2010 (and it’s predecessors) where PCs don’t have a hierarchy and competing needs of PC are balanced. Clients were not exposed to personal beliefs as it was about them.

It is less than a decade (2015 I think Allison Bailey stated) that the GI belief has not just gained traction but overturned the long standing practice of neutrality in the workplace. It is frightening but also shows what can be achieved by brave people like Maya, Allison, Rachel and others.

The needs of those looked after by social-workers are not usually anything to do with gender beliefs either

Not usually, no. But sometimes they are, including children. And adhering rigidly to trans ideology in these instances is actually potentially more harmful than being gender critical. There is more professional curiosity in a GC approach than an automatically affirming one, yet which one gets punished…

Very happy with this result! There's been some talk at work about it. When a worker has to complete re registration every year SWE requires you to confirm your 'gender identity'. One year you had the option of stating 'other' and completing a declaration in which you write your own text, so you could declare that you didn't have a one. It was a long winded way to resist the stupidity and exercise defiance against the machine. Last year that option wasn't there and you couldn't complete unless you declared your gender. Not completing isn't an option because without registration you can't practice. I look forward to seeing what happens this year as I think some will feel emboldened to challenge that more strongly now - it'd need some planning to make sure it's approached at the start of the registration window though, so time doesn't run out.

I've been out gardening for Rachel and I really hope SWE and BASW et al are rattled enough to start employing some critical thinking. We'll see!

Gardening for Rachel and hoping that the others who were suspended (for not snitching 'the witch') are also given proper compensation in the end of this.

@RethinkingLife thank you - I can’t see SWE agreeing a reasonable settlement given their behaviour to date!

A bit more on this in the Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/social-workers-scared-to-speak-about-trans-issues-382370zcm

https://archive.ph/Fv9Pg

I expect in a few years, possibly not that long, we'll see the CoW being sued by careleavers and/or their families. But what Farrell is doing seems to be what they want to put into law in Scotland.

Frightening. So dangerous when people are too scared to raise safeguarding concerns. Why do we never learn? I bet this is being replicated in councils across the UK.

Thanks for link.

Underscores nicely what I said about social work and SWE!

@IcakethereforeIam thank you for the link.

This is the next big scandal, many of us can se it but others seem blind. There will be a public enquiry and people like Helen Farrell will try to use weasel words or blame others not realising the damage they have done.

Belated Congratulations 🎊! Rachel !

Another article in the Times by Simon Fanshawe.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/beware-the-culture-wars-how-employers-can-trip-over-trans-issues-fvj9m5kxv

https://archive.ph/zUMSl

Although for most of us on FWS it's kind of labouring the point 😃 by now. I hope it will get through to a few more HR departments, politicians and even, I may hope, activists.

Cripes that is a terrific article, thank you.

Yes, good article. This bit in particular bears repeating:

If you say you value diversity in your company, that means diversity of views too.

Well, we all know what 'diversity' really means these days - it means the exact opposite. Narrow minded group think and prioritisation of one group over all others. Everyone forced to chant 2+2=5 or face what happened to Rachel Meade if they don't.

Views is starting to be an inaccurate term in some ways.

Sexed reality is framed as offensive as for example marching around an office loudly expressing a view that homosexuality is a sin.

In fact it is nearer religious tolerance. You cannot demand that everyone in your office prays with you, genuflects at your altar, and denounce them as sinners and try to get rid of them when they explain that no, they have other beliefs that they choose to live by. It is not 'offensive' to not believe what you do and live by those beliefs.

The issue is the demand to enable someone else's personal belief system and create it around them/reflect it back to them. Yes, that person may well perceive that as you rejecting the 'true authentic them' and other such stuff, but the distortion is there.

You are entitled to not be bullied or harassed for your beliefs and lifestyle if it is appropriate and within the boundaries of the situation you are in. Non participation and other beliefs to yours are not bullying or harassment. Failing to tolerate those with other beliefs and their boundaries and rights not to participate or enable you - and seeking to convert them, punish and coerce them into participation or get rid of them from your environment - is harassment.