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

Yes but not crucial and people keep pretending the word some did not precede the entire list

Punctuation is actually crucial if you want people to understand what you are saying.

If you want people to realise that you have written one very long sentence, it's not a great idea to pepper it with full stops, is it?

He may have written "Some: Mexicans are rapists = fact." with an unnecessary colon, but he then went on to write:

"Arabs are terrorists = fact."
"Gay people are pedos [sic] = fact."
"Black people commit more crimes = fact."
"Gender critical people are transphobic = fact."

The full stops make these standalone sentences which are not in any way qualified by the word "some", even if the word "some" made a meaningful difference, which it doesn't really (for the reasons I explained above).

It's like the difference between "Let's eat Grandma" and "Let's eat, Grandma."

Punctuation matters.

Agree!

Everything was on a different line. Some: clearly preceded the list. The full stops could have been semi colons or no punctuation but it was clearly a list preceded by the word some which I managed to understand.

Listen, as you are clearly unable to comprehend a simple concept as in the weaponisation of facts that apply to some of an identity group as representative of the whole group then I think we will leave it there.

As far as some gender criticals using dehumanising & demonising language, yes that is a fact & maybe a fact you perhaps can't recognise because it may be acceptable to you.

I would that fairly clearly goes in the “factual but unwise to bring up at work” bucket! Clearly people with very conservative views exist and they may believe gay people should be stoned (or that they subscribe to a religion that states so, perhaps rather than actively wishing for the stoning) and they may have jobs. And it would not be a crime to say they have those beliefs it out loud at work. But it would be really unwise and ill considered, so don’t say it.

It’s very much the same as knowing tomato is a fruit but don’t put it in a fruit salad. Time and place.

Quite! There is neither a causal nor correlative link between those weird couplings of words. And it is factually indisputable- at least by the sane- that human mammals are sexually dimorphic ( there are only 2 sexes)

Attention seeker with limited grasp of reality, twists reality and seeks attention, attempting to ruin a woman's career in the process.

Them sounds a treat.

It is as contentious to say ‘there are two sexes’, as it is to say ‘the earth is roughly spherical’ . If a person cannot accept proven and established scientific facts then it isn’t up to others to have to avoid those discussions.

I would say that referring to gender critical feminists as "gender criticals" is quite dehumanising in itself, no?

The problem is that people like you twist language so much that we can't trust you when you accuse others of using, for example, "demonising and dehumanising language".

If you could actually give an example of a real quote by a real person, explain why you think they are a gender critical feminist, and explain why you think their language is transphobic/demonising/dehumanising then we could have a discussion about that.

But you won't, for obvious reasons.

Now, if I am to take you in good faith and assume that you intended your meaning to be clear, I would say the following.

If you were to say that [some] Mexicans are rapists, Arabs are terrorists, gay people are pedos [sic] or black people commit more crimes, you would quite rightly be accused of racism or homophobia. Even the fact that you have qualified your statement using the word "some" is no defence to this accusation, because adding the word "some" makes these phrases factually meaningless and so we have to ask ourselves why you are singling out these groups in particular.

However, if you say that "gender critical people are transphobic", even without the use of the word "some", this will be treated as a fact by many people who self ID as "progressive". Our whole group is regularly tarred with this accusation, without any kind of evidence or working being shown. Frequently we aren't even shown the courtesy of being labelled "gender critical" but are referred to as "anti-trans" instead.

So out of the five groups you posted, gender critical feminists are the only group about whom "progressives" consider it acceptable to make defamatory statements. Clearly you think it is acceptable, because you spend all day every day on here doing exactly that.

So are we to understand, from your inclusion of gender critical feminists in your poorly punctuated list, that you now agree that your defamatory statements about us are unacceptable? That they are, in fact, just as unacceptable as accusing Mexicans of being rapists and gay people of being "pedos"?

Why the fuck are you lolling at rape? How old are you?

Did you miss the word "Some"?

Typical 'bait and swich'

a - bring some completely unrelated things to a thread
b - making those unrelated things false and arguable
c - spends all day derailing the thread arguing about the intricacies of the completely unrelated things.

I've had kids in my 'unable to attend regular school' classes who tried to do this all day long. It was tiresome then, and it is tiresome now.

But that's the point, it is designed to try and tire everyone out or to exasperate someone so badly that they say 'Oh, just fuck off' and then they are the one that gets banned.

Yep.

Yes to this. People change like the wind and opinions (as we know well can cost jobs)

Workplaces should not be allowed to impose religious/ideological restrictions or beliefs in workers.

This would help prevent a lot of the hypocritical virtue signalling that weak people indulge in to try and ‘keep in’ with whichever side is the biggest bully.

“I’m a woman/ I’m a man/ I’m non-binary” - is simply telling people your gender/sex or what you believe your gender / sex to be.

It’s not quite the same as discussing one’s view on gender identity.

If someone told me they’re non-binary (in a work context) I’d politely nod. Same as somebody telling me they’re vegan when making lunch reservations. It’s not something I would want to discuss at work. Just not.

Got to admit, that "some" word is in fact there in the original post. Sort of floating high above the rest of the post. As if trying to dissociate itself from what follows.
Here are some more words to incorporate or not as people perceive.
See how many ways the meaning of the following sentence can be changed by inserting one or more of the these free-flying qualifiers.
Ah, takes me back to my school days!

Not
Rarely
Always
Seldom
All
Most
Never

People post utter tosh on MN

If I read it right, the claim fell mainly because it was out of time.

This person was on a 12 month fixed term contract starting in January 2022, things hotted up by November that year: was it to do with the contract not being renewed perhaps? That's merely my speculation, as I would have recommended non-renewal if I'd been the decision maker

“So are we to understand, from your inclusion of gender critical feminists in your poorly punctuated list, that you now agree that your defamatory statements about us are unacceptable?”

That is how I read it too. I thought ‘well, that is a sign of self awareness that I didn’t expect!’ And I also thought that the ‘I will leave it there’ is also a significant change.

It remains to be seen whether he will actually "leave it there".

Cor some people do keep my scrolling thumb busy

on the article, this individual does very much seem like a ‘type’ don’t they? I’d posit that people who want to do fuck all and expect everything in the work place to be on their terms may be more likely to have some sort of ‘gender identity’

The most sensible response, thank you.
I think when people are in forced long-term close proximity ( work , family, neighbours etc) staying away from potential divisive conversation is better for everyone.

I have known work colleagues and nighbour fall out in spectacular style because they have found out that their views don't align , despite them been good friends for many years previous to the problem conversation.

He needs to understand how to use punctuation correctly.

Indeed.

It was a way to attempt to falsely legitimise the ‘Gender critical people are transphobic = fact’. I suspect that was the real reason. To be able to do say this without being deleted.

I agree with @HaveYouActuallyDoneAnyWashingThisWeekMum. Unless you’re very, very comfortable with your colleagues it’s not wise to discuss politics, religion, money etc. at work.