Kellie Jay Keen

[Beebop2025]

Just watched KJK talking about all things trans on a Tanya De Grunwald podcast ( great podcast) - she says she is banned from mumsnet? I just wondered why she was banned.

As PPs have said, there was a context to that clip.

I’ve seen a couple of threads on MN, one referencing a term used in HR circles of “HMH” meaning High Maintenance Hire, or people who are going to be/become troublemakers. Another thread was from a parent wondering why her child, who had pronouns on their CV and announced their non-binary status at interviews, wasn’t getting a job.

I don’t want to see trans people shut out of society and unable to get a job or rent a house, but - given the tantrums, the bullying and the victimhood that goes on - I can see why people would quietly give a swerve to someone they suspect is going to complain about being misgendered by colleagues, or be the sort of person who rings you at 3am because the kitchen lightbulb has gone and they don’t see why they should change it themselves.

But this brings us back to the central theme of this thread - I don’t agree with everything KJK says (and if I’d had a fraction of the flack she has, maybe I’d be that bloody angry too) but that doesn’t mean agreeing with her on other things is a tacit endorsement of every opinion or that she should be “cancelled” for saying something I don’t like.

Obviously I would not bring up trans or misgendering... merely ask questions in order to try to see if they are or are not tolerant of a variety of legally held views. It cannot be discrimination those who will attempt to silence legally held views, or object to them.

The recruitment I'm involved is at the more senior level, and I still have to say things like, "She's got an impressive CV, based on the CV alone I'd say she could do the job, but unfortunately the answers she gave didn't address the essential criteria."

There's a technique to doing interviews. I'm not the greatest at it myself, but I've seen very experienced people crash and burn because they didn't get the technique.

If faced with a blue haired youngster interviewing for an entry level position, who spends the first five minutes monologuing about her pronouns, I would have to question whether she actually wants the job.

Good grief, got to laugh at the posts saying there is a 'context' to Kelly Jay Keen recommending wholesale employment and housing refusal simply on the basis of trans status. 🙄

Oh wow here's a blast from the past!

Yes, it's another gift that the transactivists have given to trans people; associating them with the sort of anti-social behaviour that will, of course, make people think twice about how well they might fit into the flat-share or the workforce.

Judging by that clip and the hosts fawning, you'd think IW would have been able to capitalise on all those TV appearances.

But no.

Totally 🙄

It would of course be illegal to not employ someone solely on the basis of a protected characteristic.

That said...

There's usually a bit at the end of the interview where the panel say "Do you have any questions for us?" That's a good moment to ask about any accomodations that might be necessary for a particular PC you might have.

Such as, "I have restricted mobility, how accessible is your building?"

Or, "I'm Muslim, do you have a space that can accomodate prayers at the appointed times?"

Or, "I'm Jewish and I keep kosher, do you have vegetarian options in your canteen?"

My memory of that AIBU thread is that the OP's daughter was going into interviews and beginning with "I'm non-binary and my pronouns are they/them" and monologuing about it. This is wrong. I can't imagine what special accomodations an enby might need, but the time to mention that, if you need to mention it, is at the end.

If you go in and put your baroque gender identity on full blast, and generally act as if you're doing the employer a favour by agreeing to be interviewed, the interview panel might reasonably conclude that you're not really interested in the job.

As someone who lost a friend in one of those attacks, Glinner can do one if he thinks he can weaponise that into supporting what he wants to support.

KJK is a lot of things, but stupid isn’t one of them.

The conversations KJK is sparking this week over the niqab are interesting. I don’t fully agree with her, nor did I like how she spoke to the ladies in the video, but I admire her courage in raising this issue. A lot of professional feminists won’t touch it.

Good for her. Feminists should be more outspoken about the niqab. Religion shouldn't be considered a hot potato. She's excellent at getting right to the heart of matters, which is why she's so popular.

The testaments she posts are heartbreaking. KJK is marmite, but God she goes straight to the heart of issues. "He's a man". "Free your face".

One thing she does is force the Overton window. The messages she is posting at the moment are truly distressing. I cannot imagine what the women who are writing them feel for their future. I find the photos taken from some of these countries in the 70s are like a whole other world.

Let Women Speak indeed

Like this photo taken of Afghan women in 1971:

People don't realise ^ those were the scenes throughout the Middle East. They just assume all Middle Eastern women have always dressed in black robes.

I’ve always found these photos so chilling.

They make me unutterably sad.

I remember seeing a tv programme, maybe in the 80s where the older women kept forgetting to use the head scarves and had to be reminded by their daughters.

Gender Reassignment is still a protected characteristic under the equality act.

Not giving a trans person a job because of things you’ve read about trans people online is unlawful, even if it’s ‘quietly giv[ing] a swerve’.

I'm not saying I would do that, I'm saying I can see why someone else would feel that way. And I've made clear that I don't necessarily agree with KJK on everything she says.

I absolutely would. If someone seems as if they’re going to be a pain in the arse and cause disruption/be unreasonably difficult I would manage to find a legal reason to give them a swerve. I’d do that with anyone who seemed awkward tbh - why would you make life deliberately difficult for yourself and everyone else?

I know everyone likes to pretend they’re a paragon of virtue but if someone seems like a pain in the arse at an interview, in reality, not many people will hire them. Peaceful working conditions are important. Some trans/NB people might come over really well and be lovely - in which case, great. But given the huge problems many within that community have caused, I’d be looking very closely for any red flags.

I am increasingly uncomfortable with many of KJK’s views too. But absolutely, on women’s rights, she is (usually) unflinching. The sole exception being her enthusiastic endorsement of the orange rapist.

When a significant number of trans people are men with a sexual fetish that demands public participation, you have to ask yourself why the bloody hell it is a protected characteristic, though.