Discussing gender issues in the office ‘unwise’, says judge

[Igneococcus]

"It can be considered “injudicious” to express opinions about gender identity issues in casual office chats, employment judge Lesley Murphy said, adding that it was ill-advised because of how those views may be perceived by others."
But if it's "unwise" to talk about gender at work (and it might well be) doesn't that include claiming to be non-binary?

https://www.thetimes.com/article/0ad11f88-681b-4d3f-b612-c2620373f18d?shareToken=02e52f48d5b414b8e5514f1eedcf740b

None of those things are facts so whatever point you think you are making here is invalid.

Actual facts are frequently relevant in the workplace, yes.

For example, "for the purposes of single sex toilets, sex means biological sex so if we have any trans employees who are unwilling to use the toilets for their sex we need to try and find a lawful solution" is a fact which is relevant to the workplace.

Another fact which is relevant to the workplace is, "gender critical beliefs are protected beliefs in law and so we cannot fire people for not believing trans women are women". All managers and all HR bods need to know this fact if they don't want to find themselves getting a ticking off in the employment tribunal.

Unless the religious person wants me to comply with their religious pieties or the sports fan wants me to support their favourite team, it is not the the same.

It should.

Unfortunately it doesn’t.

Poor old hows. Spends sooo many hours on here yet his endless posts never quite make their mark, always needing correcting, clarifying and even interpreting at times. 😂

Agree. Makes no sense to me.

Um ,yes they are facts for some individuals from those groups

As I already mentioned upthread (might help if you read it) "context matters" when discussing facts.

What untruths? That some individuals from those groups are implicated are facts.

As I already stated, "context matters" when discussing facts.

Retrospectively adding the word "some" changes the entire meaning.

There were zero facts in what you posted. None.

Lol, are you seriously suggesting a Mexican never committed a rape? 🤪

Oh dear. Completely unnecessary.

I'm saying that "Mexicans are rapists", which is what you actually typed and labelled "fact" is not a fact.

I posted "some" repeatedly.

Not in the same sentence that you labelled a "fact".

If I typed the phrase "trans women are men" and someone reported me to HR, how do you think it would go if I said that what I had actually said is "trans women are not men" because I had used the word "not" in a different sentence?

But a couple of us have pointed out to you that just writing some without completing the sentence makes no sense.

I am fascinated by the "what is WORIADS?" element of religious belief.

Obviously people should be free to say "by the way I'm a Muslim". Obviously religious belief is protected.

But what if they then say to their gay colleagues "by the way, I am very much the conservative end of Islam and I believe that all societies should be full Sharia Law and part of that is killing gay men by stoning"?

The original post:

"Some:
Mexicans are rapists = fact.
Arabs are terrorists = fact
Gay people are pedos = fact
Black people commit more crimes = fact
Gender critical people are transphobic = fact"

Not so long ago, where I was working, it was all about 'bring your whole self to work' and 'everyone should be free to express themselves fully'. It was also pretty clear though that didn't actually include anyone who believes that there are only two sexes and no one can change between them.

Since then, it's only got worse. It often feels like having to carry around a deep, dark secret and it really shouldn't be that way. People should never have to fear for their jobs and careers for believing a probable fact.

Not so long ago, where I was working, it was all about 'bring your whole self to work' and 'everyone should be free to express themselves fully'. It was also pretty clear though that didn't actually include anyone who believes that there are only two sexes and no one can change between them.

Since then, it's only got worse. It often feels like having to carry around a deep, dark secret and it really shouldn't be that way. People should never have to fear for their jobs and careers for believing a probable fact.

Thanks for posting. Claimant brings completely unfounded claims against a small charity. The judge not only dismisses all her claims but finds that she lied. Oh and being non-binary is not a protected characteristic. The charity will not have been able to recover costs.

This is the heart of it isn't it? Another charity, small business, individual financially harmed by someone trying to impose their niche ideology (that they're neither a man or woman 😄) on a workplace.

One of the comments under the article states that this individual has taken another employer to a tribunal for discrimination

The claimant seems to have bit of a track record in such cases. This was in the Comments section in The Times:

Your meaning here was not clear and I suspect this was your intention all along.

Now, what is the phrase "some Mexicans are rapists" supposed to tell us? You could replace the word "Mexicans" with any nationality in the world and it would still be true, so how is this a relevant thing to say?

You could replace "Arabs" with most other ethnicities and it would still be true.

You could replace "gay people" with straight people and it would still be true.

As for "black people commit more crimes", this sentence is a comparator so adding "some" makes an already unsubstantiated claim even less clear. "Black people commit more crimes" is an incomplete sentence which needs to end with "than [comparator group]" and be backed up by verifiable data. "Some black people commit more crimes" doesn't make any sense whether you include a comparator group or not, because "some" people from all ethnicities commit more crimes than "other" people from all ethnicities, so this actually tells us nothing at all about how many crimes are committed by black people.

As for "gender critical people are transphobic," or even "some gender critical people are transphobic", you don't appear to understand what gender critical actually means, so neither version is meaningful.

As such, only the first three become facts by adding the word "some" at the beginning, but they are not meaningful facts.

And the latter two make no sense whether you add the word "some" or not.

Some:
People don’t read the whole post
People don’t know how lists with an introductory word followed by a colon work
Of us knew exactly how this point would play out on mumsnet.

Almost as if this person is the common denominator, huh?

I would suggest that bullet points are helpful in this sort of situation.