Another GC employment tribunal. Adam's vs Edinburgh Rape Crsis

[Rainbowshit]

x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1746830866020442400?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

Claiming constructive dismissal for GC beliefs.

ERC CEO is a well known transwoman know for controversial "reframe your trauma" remarks.

Nicole Jones

I think NJ's name was Nicole Jones. She was a student at Edinburgh Uni until recently and attended an event in March 2023 where MW was a speaker. SOmeone else here might be able to remember more accurately than me what the question was, to which MW's answer was 'Fire them'.

i think that was in reference to the question about if employees weren't seen as trans inclusive.

I think it was along the lines of, what is the best way to win over (/ deal with?) people who disagree with you...?

x.com/Lighthousebks/status/1639198127692365824

He painted NJ as “massive terf” with his sneering tone

From TT

NJ: MW was asked how to bring staff on board if not sure about trans-inclusive and he said bluntly "fire them". Said firing cd be as important as hiring when creating inclusive spaces.

NJ said she is an intern at Sex Matters. That was in response to counsel for ERCC (DH) looking for a way to imply she was partisan to cast doubt on her evidence of what Mridul Wadhwa had said.

It was a clever way to get that Tweet into evidence.

The point is if you decide to stay, which many of us do, you have to understand when you are crossing a line by continually raising the same question and know at that point in time keeping your own counsel is the pragmatic option.

That's the difference between most of us and those who persist and bring substantial failings to public attention. (And then end up in protracted litigation, compromise or lose their careers, or end up needing to emigrate, and can even find themselves losing friends and family.)

[Kierkegaard's] contribution to ethics was to reveal our ethical evasions, that is, the ways in which we pull the wool over our own eyes by talking ourselves out of inconvenient moral truths. In a note to himself, Kierkegaard scribbles:

• "Aesthetically … admiration is the highest … Then along comes the ethical and says: as a matter of fact, wanting to imitate is decisive; admiration has no place or is an evasion."

Admiration that does not lead to action is one of the moral off-ramps Kierkegaard tries to dissuade us from taking…
Writing under the pseudonym Johannes Climacus, Kierkegaard drew an equivalence between the universal and the ethical, and in so doing hammered out an important distinction:

• "That one person can swim the channel, and a second person knows 24 languages, and a third person walks on his hands etc – one can admire that si placet [if you please]. But if the person presented is supposed to be great with regard to the universal because of his virtue, his faith, his nobility, his faithfulness, his perseverance, etc, then admiration is a deceptive relation …"

What is great with regard to the universal must therefore not be presented as an object for admiration, but as a requirement. Admiration for Kierkegaard is a carpet path to the easy chair. He reminds us: ‘there is an infinite difference between an admirer and an imitator, because an imitator is, or at least strives to be what he admires.’

https://psyche.co/ideas/why-kierkegaard-believed-its-lazy-to-admire-our-moral-heroes

I recognise the admirer | imitator split in my life. I'm an imitator in some roles in my life and admirer in others. I'm not at ease with myself but that's my compromise.

The tweets described by Nicole Jones.
1/3

I disagree. This isn't secretive information that no one knows or would know if it wasn't disclosed. Its blatantly obvious. It's like the client saying she has triggers around people with dark hair, so to RA asked if she could be referred to X who is blonde (for e.g). Every single person working there will have known what sex the NB person was, just as they'd know what hair colour she has.

2/3

3/3

NJ: MW was asked how to bring staff on board if not sure about trans-inclusive and he said bluntly "fire them". Said firing cd be as important as hiring when creating inclusive spaces.

And then the silly bookshop fawned over that comment in a tweet.

@InvisibleBuffy just because colleagues know or suspect does not mean you can tell a client/customer.

Have a look at your own organisations privacy policy, staff handbook etc.

This is just silly. It implies that we are supposed to treat all our colleagues like amorphous blobs whose sex cannot possibly be known.
And presumably, since most people automatically use pronouns based on sex, anyone replying something like "I'll ask her" to the question "Is Shannon joining the meeting?" is immediately and illegally disclosing a colleague's sex.

But people refer to other people by their sex all the time.

Ask him if he wants to join us, would she like confirmation by next week, it's his day off.

How come that's not disclosing sensitive information?

Or come to that, 'she's on maternity leave.'

@InvisibleBuffy you are missing the point a NB person does not wish to be defined by their sex. This is a philosophical belief and it is likely they could demonstrate it met the criteria to be protected belief, just like GC beliefs

You may not agree with it but if you were asked by a client or customer if your NB colleague called Alex or Charlie is male or female what would you say? What would you say to a client or customer if your colleague was a TW or TM? Do you know who does and doesn’t hold a GRC?

NJ: MW was asked how to bring staff on board if not sure about trans-inclusive and he said bluntly "fire them". Said firing cd be as important as hiring when creating inclusive spaces.

If that's accurate then this case can't come as much of a surprise to ERCC.

You may not agree with it but if you were asked by a client or customer if your NB colleague called Alex or Charlie is male or female what would you say?

You presumably have to say "they're non-binary, so I can't say". If that's the special sensitivity. Except I thought we'd flipped to the "non-binary" being the sensitive thing?

Do we have to conceal the sex AND the non-binary?

So "I can't tell you their sex but I can't tell you why?"

Or do we have to keep secret the fact that we're not allowed to tell their sex specifically, so we have to conceal it by not revealing anyone's sex, so you can't tell who is and isn't happy to have their sex revealed. In a rape crisis centre? Sounds like we're firmly into NWORIADS by now, if we weren't before.

Maybe this thread isn't the best place for all our Wot I Reckons about the data protection act. We could start another one and not derail this one?

@Datun but do you call a NB colleague they or them and what do you call a trans person? MW would expect to be called she/her at work and in correspondence with clients/customers.

Please remember I am talking about at work and what you would say to a client and customer.

Thanks and I agree. I'm here for the E.T.