Waterstones come out as GC and fire TRA for social media post

[woman2womanmeetswomanparrish]

Fantsatstic news, Christina Dalcher has sucessfully managed to get this TRA fired from their job at Waterstones for X comment.

https://x.com/TillyLovesBooks/status/1810337926850445453?t=WABH0ieBQdnUtaQL5FVlyQ&s=19

We all know if a homophobe or transphobe or "gender critical" advocated binning books (if that's what happened here) by LGBT people and got fired for it then Mumsnet users would lose their minds, JK Rowling would post about it the very next day on her twitter donating lots of money towards a court case to appeal it and it would be all over the mostly right wing media tabloids.

"Finally some consequences for the worst people in the world."

This is a quote from Graham Linehan on twitter. If he thinks women who support LGBT/trans rights are "the worst people in the world" then he doesn't get out much does he? How ridiculous.

Waterstones fired an employee because of their social media use. You feel this amounts to silencing of women. What did Waterstones say when you took it up with them?

You...think JK Rowling would publicly support and help fund a court case in support of someone who got fired for threatening to bin books?

😂😂😂

Try listening to anything JK Rowling has ever said about the kind of people who destroy books.

I feel sorry for her losing her job. People post dumb shit on the internet all the time.
I have my 80yo born-again christian auntie on FB and the thought that she reads my posts keeps me on the straight and narrow. I only swear on special occasions. I work for a giant corporation and bear that in mind too.
Posting on social media can get one in trouble out of all proportion to the effort of tippy tapping and pressing send.

This isn’t a case of silencing women at all. This is about decency and respect.

It's so interesting to me how it's always female authors who get called out by these kinds of people- people they disagree with (and are welcome to disagree with) but who haven't actually done anything wrong. But, off the top of my head, the author Neil Gaiman has just been accused of sexual assault, and Boy George who has a book out has a criminal conviction for handcuffing and beating another man. Why is it never them with the threat of censorship hanging over them? I don't agree with censorship at all, but just find it curious how people like Tilly don't concern themselves with problematic male authors and go straight for women they don't like or agree with .

@Christinapple has an interesting take on the world of work. Being fired from your job wouldn't result in an appeal but in an employment tribunal, and if you'd committed the sin (for a bookseller) of saying on SM that you'd bin books based on the author's political beliefs, I suspect you'd be skating on thin ice.

@Christinapple (still), you don't tell us who Graham Linehan was talking about when he said 'the worst people in the world...' I suspect he was talking about child mutilators. In which case, he's not wrong.

I'll be very interested if Tilly is planning on a book burning of an author who stayed married to the pedophile who assaulted her daughter? What about a sexual assaulter. Or the mass murderer of Jews? Seriously, Tilly, if you want to be consistent, surely next on your list would be Alice Munro, Neil Gaiman and Hitler?

I saw her video and it reminded me of something Kara Dansky has written about the pathological behavior of TRAs who are mostly women. They come off as deeply unwell and have cult-like reactions to disagreements. Tilly, in her video, reminds me of the women who wore all white and hummed while a teen girl gave testimony of having boys invade her sports and locker rooms. Behavior that is unhinged and bizarre.

I agree.

I think this person was alI about diminishing the authors readership and success as an author. They absolutely did not see their own behaviour as the same as what they have accused the author’s tweet tagging Waterstone’s of doing. How can they? That person is in righteousness mode and fully believes they have a right, as an employer of a national bookseller, to threaten to destroy the books the employer has listed on line.

I don’t think this person has the ability to see their own behaviour in that clip. It is arrogant at best, at worst it is a narcissistic style emotional melt down for being held to account for their actions.

As usual you display that you cannot understand situations with even a modicum of complexity. It is not women silencing this publishing social media influencer, it is their employer. And waterstones don’t want to hire someone who threatens to rip up the product they are hired to sell and certainly don’t want to hire someone who posts they are going to do this on social media.

This woman could be expressing this opinion about any author and waterstones would have the right to terminate her employment with them.

If this woman was not employed to sell books at Waterstones, but was just a book reviewer, she would be free to say that she would destroy books. People and publishers sending her free books would have the right to judge her and whether to keep following or sending samples.

This influencer did not just give a negative review. This influencer cross into activism in the workplace, and Waterstones do not want activists to destroy books on their staff.

But hey, good to see another live demonstration on extreme trans activist’s lack of ability to think beyond the immediate emotional response. Thanks for that.

“We all know if a homophobe or transphobe or "gender critical" advocated binning books (if that's what happened here) by LGBT people and got fired for it then Mumsnet users would lose their minds, JK Rowling would post about it the very next day on her twitter donating lots of money towards a court case to appeal it and it would be all over the mostly right wing media tabloids”

Readers note: apple is giving people who believe in material reality and prioritise sex above gender when sex matters the same emotion led reactions as extreme trans activists. I can only assume it is because this is the way that the poster themselves reacts to the world, and that they cannot understand that others don’t act that way.

Most feminists will buy the book that they disagree with and then review it pointing out the issues that make the conclusion of the book flawed or unsupported. If they come across a book written by someone who has a background that is abhorrent, such as a pedophile or a proven white supremist, then they may choose to not review the book or to include a note about the author’s background.

I have not yet seen one feminist who would rip up books. Certainly none who work in a bookseller where the threat can be taken as being done at work.

Joanne Rowling would not support someone who ripped up books in a bookseller. She has laughed at those who destroy books that they have purchased and once loved as a public protest to that author acknowledging that sex matters sometimes and that people cannot change sex. Because that action is a childish tantrum. Just like Tilly’s threat was.

The difference is that many, maybe most, feminists read as much as they can gain a deeper understanding of someone’s views. It is the extreme trans rights activists who are the totalitarian and authoritarian group needing to destroy books. Feminists read the books and discuss them.

But again, apple shows everyone reading along that not only do they not understand feminists, but they cannot think outside their own childish reaction.

You are quite literally Hitler and have just genocided trans people.

Agree. This was a breach of employment terms, not a statement by Waterstones of their views whether GC or otherwise.

No. There have been several years of #NoDebate. Net result is that the TRAs have not managed to hone their argument as to why they are right and anyone vaguely GC is wrong and a stinky pop-poo.

This means they never ever hear the word "no" and believe they follow the One True Belief (TM). This has meant serious overreach by some and inappropriate comments on social media, egged on by their equally blinkered fanbois. Rina, who apparently 'loves books' [sic] made a post to 90k followers dissing an author for having a different view of the world. Also mentioned ripping up books (it was not clear if she meant her own or her employer's stock). The writer - who is as entitled to her views as Rina - pushed back, tagging the employer (Waterstones). Who decided that Rina the book lover (#NotAllBooks) should be terminated.

Fuck around, they said. Find out, she did.

I agree that this doesn't make Waterstones 'GC' but it does show that actions have consequences. So while I feel slightly sorry for Rina, I hope she learns from this. And I hope her 90k followers also learn from this.

And I have ordered one of the writer's books because it looks right up my street. Alas not from Waterstones.

Vox doesn’t sound like my usual “tasse de the” fiction wise but I am intrigued now so going to order it today. Thank you, Tilly, for the heads-up.

(I can’t help reading a certain username as Christ in an 🍎)

Hmmm. I'm betting sales talk.

All these TRA books which get put on display for pride. Do they actually sell? Whereas I suspect Hannah Barnes rather heavy serious tome, has probably done steady business.

I feel as though the tears are a performance of some sort.
If not then she's a very stupid woman and doesn't deserve her job. If she starts writing to authors of books where she doesn't like the content then she's going to be busy! That is her bread and butter, the very reason she has a job. This performative outrage on social media has consequences if you link it to your job and rightly so.

If people think Waterstones are biased, will they buy their books there?

Wanna bet who buys and reads more books? Young social media focused activists or slightly older dinosaur shaped old crones?

Those huge publishing deals for books pushing diversity, are known not to have been too commercially successful.

Do Waterstones want to be associated with people who advocate books being destroyed and all that is linked to historically (which the well read are more likely to connect to)? I think not.

I don't think it's pro-GC. I do think it's a simple savvy business decision.

I will now never read that user name any differently. Considering the proselytising style posts from that poster, perhaps that is what was meant.

As an old shop steward and all round leftie hack I hate to see people lose their jobs.

But this is up there with the guy I represented at a hearing who had told the boss to ' Fuck off'. In front of witnesses. Somehow we saved his job. Thank goodness there was no social media back then.

Yeah I mean, if they have a clause saying anything on social media that doesn't look good for the company isn't allowed, so be it. She should have checked her contact. I Personally don't agree with that sort of clause but obviously she's the one who signed it!

I saw this on Twitter last night, but what’s the background re the writer she was publicly trashing?

Like others, I’m not a fan of people losing their jobs for their opinions. Too many feminists have suffered in this way and we can’t protest that, while being comfortable about this. I think Waterstones should have given her a stern warning and a disciplinary hearing so she stops being a bigot on SM.

I disagree though. I think the guy you defended could have justification and obviously did or was considered to be reacting against the power imbalance or any number of things. Likely as an immediate reaction.

This person has a side gig as a social media influencer and is obviously an activist. I would argue that they thought more about this reaction than the person you helped. I would suggest that this was nothing but deliberate and for social credit. Because of the video that came after the termination. It takes effort to produce a video like this. I take that as an indication that the two are more dissimilar than similar, if you know what I mean.

No. There have been several years of #NoDebate. Net result is that the TRAs have not managed to hone their argument as to why they are right and anyone vaguely GC is wrong and a stinky pop-poo

I think you are being kind. It was not just a case of 'no debate', it was more often then not orchestrated social media pile ons, going after your employer and doxing your personal details for having the audacity to not meekly fall at the alter of the new trans religion. The zealots saw it as their new role to police correct think and use bullying tactics if needs be such was their confidence in their moral superiority and that they were on the right side of history. That is beginning to unravel somewhat as a raft of employment tribunals have rules in favour of gender critical women and organisations are now sitting up to the fact that maybe allowing TRAs to scream their views on company time is legal liability and that they need to actually follow the law and not what Stonewall recommends.

Could be worse, when dd was in an online class for college i commando crawled across the room behind her, fondly imagining that i couldn’t be seen

oh and i gave her a kiss when she was typing not realising she was in a lecture because i couldn’t see people on the screen

technology and me are not friends