…a single post on a relatively obscure messageboard isn’t equivalent to the volume of tweets she was making. I’ll concede you post more daily characters, but that isn’t the point.
I don’t need to quote an expert to dispute what was said in the article. I asked you:
Do you want to address any of that? I think the author of the Guardian article completely missed the boat here. Its your cite: what do you think?
They are welcome to feel anyway they like.
And?
I’m not trying to stop her participating in the debate. She is welcome to debate all she likes.
We know which way the employment court ruled. They were allowed to do whatever it was that they did.
Fantastic!
No its absolutely on point. Its about making a safe environment for everyone to exist. A workplace that allows people to openly question the gender and dignity of other members of staff is not one that is safe for transgender people. And a message board that allows the identity of its members to be openly debated is not an environment that is safe for transgender people to participate. That’s why they have all left. Its absolutely on topic.
Why are you repeating what I just told you?
If they expressed them in public (as the employee in the original example did) then why would I keep them on?
What part of “I don’t live in the United States of America” did you not understand? Fortunately I have no intention of staffing a factory in much, or anywhere in America.
Thats nice. You can do whatever the fuck you like. I own my own business. I will not police the beliefs of my employees or my contractors. But if you openly express transphobic beliefs then it would be irresponsible for me to allow you in my workplace.
This wasn’t the conclusion of the court. I cited the conclusion of the court.
We aren’t talking about “good manners” here. Imagine calling a Maori man like me a H#$i. This isn’t about being merely impolite for fucks sakes.
I would just like to say I have no problem with Maya being fired. I think people should be able to say whatever they want to say. But speech should never be free from consequences. It is naive and juvenile to think ones speech should only earn praise and job offers but never condemnation or job termination.
A person who tweets that much on a topic that doesn’t really affect them personally probably would work my nerves, if I were their employer. Call me cruel, but I think employers should be able to fire folks who work their nerves…even if that nerve-working doesn’t happen on the job. And before you ask DSeid, no I would not like to be fired because of my internet postings. However, if I do get fired I will hire you to be on my defense team.
While I don’t think expressing some concern over the potential ramifications of repealing the gender law should be reflexively equated with bigotry and hate, I don’t think that was all she did. It really does sound like the idea of men being treated like women bothers her immensely. The only thing that really bothers me is people being unable to defend spaces from edgelords and attention-seekers without looking TERFy. But it doesn’t take dozens of tweets every day to express this concern.
:rolleyes: at George Carlin’s cranky-old-man kvetching that the terminological shift from “shell shock” to “battle fatigue” to “post-traumatic stress disorder” is somehow indicative of increasing aversion to facing reality and retreat into euphemism. The term “post-traumatic stress disorder” happens to be more accurate and descriptive than “shell shock”: get over it, boomer.
There’s a reasonable case to be made for pushing back against euphemistic language, but that clip sure ain’t it. Nor do I find it worthwhile to let ideologues like the self-identified “gender critical feminists” distract attention away from their own pernicious transphobia to side issues like whether it’s okay to refer to them as “TERFs”.
I agree that that’s a valid issue. But as I’ve always said, the way to deter edgelords and attention-seekers is the same as the way to support actual transgender folks, genderqueer folks, and everybody else of good will: Just accept people for who they identify as and don’t make a fuss about their categorization.
If we all stop treating transgender or non-gender-conformity or whatever as such a big deal, then edgelords and attention-seekers will not be able to stir up a tsuris of controversy with their stupid trolling and they’ll go away.
It’s also a lot less humane, punchy, more sterile and most importantly it takes a whole lot more time to say or type. It might be fine in an academics paper, it’s not fine for twitter work. Which is why people write PTSD instead. Oh look, an acronym !
But you’re doing just that by accepting their redefinition of terms ? “TERF” is a perfectly functional, worthwhile, established descriptor for a set of beliefs and their origin (or pretense of origin). Literally the only people who object to it are people who don’t like to get pushback or criticism for those beliefs ; much like racists would really rather you call them “race realists” and neonazis style themselves as “defenders of Western Civilization”. A tiny violin cantata waiting to be written, there, for sure.
Calling bigots by their chosen terminology is essentially being complicit in their attempts to relabel their bigotry. I feel like in trans discussions, particularly, there’s an undercurrent (whether explicit or implicit) of “we should call trans people what they want to be called, I’ll call anyone what they want to be called to be polite!” And that betrays a deeply held core of bigotry within the speaker, not necessarily the “you’re a huge bigot” kind of bigotry where you’ll actively say “we don’t serve your kind”, but the passive bigotry that causes you to make snap decisions against trans people. The kind of bigotry Dr. King spoke about when he lambasted the white moderate who is “more dedicated to a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.” It’s essentially treating both as “just opinions” or “not real”, as if they’re intangible debates published in the annals of some dusty philosophy book, rather than real bigotry against real people. It betrays that at its core you’re humoring trans people the same way you’re humoring racist or transphobic or misogynistic opinions. Maybe you still think the trans position is more valid, and i cannot know what goes on in your head, you may be a staunch supporter of trans rights, but know that the argument you make is essentially putting the respect of trans peoples’ right to self determination on the same level as a bigot’s coy framing of their philosophy.
Well, as I said, I think using the adjective “self-described” makes it very clear that the user isn’t buying the relabelling, while simultaneously denying the relabellers an opportunity to shift the discussion away from their bigotry to nomenclatural nitpicking.
I still think this is treating them with kid gloves. If they attempt to shift the discussion away from whatever point they’re making to quibble over terminology,
Why are you platforming TERFs in the first place, this is a dangerous game that is easy to fuck up.
Politely shift the discussion back, or use a firm and consistent response. We do this in union bargaining when the employer’s negotiators try to reframe us as anything other than “employees”. We just say “We work for you for pay, we are employees…” and then immediately shift to addressing the other points.
Besides, as far as I can tell there aren’t any TERFs “in the room” right now. There is only one person on this board (to my recollection) I would remotely call a TERF, and they’re both not here right now and if they were here would only react to be calling a TERF, not the terminology itself, and would likely have the same reaction to being framed as “gender critical”. There are plenty of transphobes on the board, either as a core philosophy or passively transphobic in subtle ways despite being nominally supportive (perhaps the better term there is “ignorant”), but there’s really nobody here to object to the terminology other than those white knighting for TERFs for reasons that appear to be related to nothing other than calls for decorum and, well, betraying that their views are at best in line with what I posted above.
What you are advocating is directly equivalent to blasphemy laws, punishing people for not believing what you do, and to make it worse what you believe seems to me to be fundamentally self contradictory.
“The gender identity of my staff members are not up for debate.”
So if a woman believes that her gender identity as a woman is inextricably linked to being a biological female and not to the social construct of your choosing, and thus your beliefs make her feel unsafe, what do you do?
From what you have said my guess would be that you’ll fire such a woman for, i.e. expressing feeling unsafe sharing a bathroom with biological males at the workplace. So it would follow that the underlying rationale is not about creating a “safe” environment where everyone should feel safe to be and feel as they wish in regards to their own gender, it’s all about imposing your own beliefs on others by wielding power over them.
But what she believes goes against almost the entirety of the scientific consensus and the qualitative evidence. The gender identity of my staff members simply isn’t up for debate. It isn’t going to happen here. If you want to debate it then this simply isn’t the job for you.
Trans-women are women. What is it exactly you find difficult to understand?
I would treat it exactly the same way if a racist didn’t want to share a bathroom with a black man because they felt “unsafe.” Isn’t that what you would do?
I’m sure you similarly believe that antidiscriminatory laws are likewise about BLASPHEMY ?
Tell her to sit back down and chill the fuck out, possibly ? How many women have been raped by transwomen in bathrooms, remind me ? Surely it must be an epidemic of Biblical proportions, TERFs and the christian morality brigade are talking about it so much. I’m sure there must be a heap of damning data and statistics behind that righteous panic. Perhaps you can link us to some reputable studies ?
Meanwhile transwomen have been assaulted and even killed for no other transgression than being trans in public. Like, just walking down the street.
So maybe don’t do the false equivalence thing ?
I’ve been lurking in this thread for awhile, and I think you’re overthinking it. It’s really just about acting in good faith and being a kind compassionate person.
I think you’ve got to trust your instincts and intuition in order to discern who around you is acting in good faith. Sometimes this may be complicated by the fact that the other person is a member of a group subject to discrimination.
You really should examine those thoughts instead instinctively shouting them down, because they may not be rooted in your latent prejudices.
Sometimes the transperson really is just acting like a troll. Sometimes the black guy really is out to scam you. Sometimes the scantily dressed woman really is a whore. Sometimes that politician you once adored really is a crook.
And if the thoughts are rooted in latent prejudice you can work on modifying them without treating your thoughts like a misbehaving dog.
I think rejecting someone’s experience because it doesn’t match up with yours is a dick move no matter who you are. It doesn’t even have to be race or gender based.
I was a salesperson and consultant in a male dominated industry for many years. I know many women in similar positions faced harassment and discrimination. I, for the most part, didn’t. But I would never tell any of those women that they didn’t experience what they did or feel what they felt.
Similarly. I didn’t like it when they tried to claim I experienced the things that they did but just didn’t recognize it. I recognize that even though we were in the same situation, our experiences were very different.
I’ll admit, inside my head I frequently criticize the style choices of other people. While I might look at the clothing and hairstyle of a transgender person and mentally roll my eyes and think “That REALLY isn’t a good look for you, dude”, I frequently have the same kind of thoughts about cisgender people”. I just keep those thoughts to myself.
Although, the last couple of transpeople I’ve encountered ( a salesperson at Target and one of my mother’s nurses) looked really good, very stylish and nicely presented. And I sort of wanted to compliment them but I couldn’t think of a way to do it that wouldn’t sound weird. I
Is a someone with “gender critical” beliefs necessarily motivated by bigotry against transsexuals?
No question that some can be but it also no question that the beliefs can be honestly held for reasons other than bigotry. Some honestly feel that their identity is being appropriated. Some hear the gender discussion as an endorsement that female brains and male brains are different, which has been the mantra of sexism forever. Some see the premise as undercutting the fight against gender inequality and as undermining analysis of systemic oppression against women. These can be honestly held beliefs and I believe often are.
Please note that is a completely different question as to whether or not those beliefs have harms, and different question as to whether or not those beliefs are correct. It is exclusively a question of motivation for the beliefs.
Several years back I was among those who was uncomfortable with the implication that male and female brains are hardwired differently. Calling me a bigot then would NOT have moved my mindset. OTOH it was a short read of Una’s postings that led to my accepting that just as anatomical sex and sexual orientation are both different and biologically determined, gender identification and gender roles are different, with gender identification apparently being mostly biologically determined.
The “gender critical” POV is I believe wrong - One can still accept that transwomen are women, and that their lived experiences and identity are not exactly the same as cis-women, and that there are very specific (and limited) places in which those difference are of great importance which should be respected, and in which a transwoman would be rude to demand sameness, and that those places are indeed very few. One can appreciate that gender identification and gender roles are NOT the same thing at all, and still fight against gender role concepts use as tools of oppression or even of expectations. One can accept the data that the brains of those who identify as male and of those who identify as female are in fact on average different, without accepting that such implies anything about how men and women are wired to behave or function.
Some of the actions desired by those with the “gender critical” POV would have harms to transpeople that far outweigh the harms that some feminists who espouse that perspective believe they are at risk for. The greater good and all. They can even have their concerns validated as of some reasonable basis and still have it pointed out to them that their potential harms are much less likely and much smaller than the harms that acting on those fears cause.
These are discussions that can be had without calling people names.
2. Jumping to a possibly, if not probably, unwarranted conclusion of bad intent and calling people bigots, instead of having those discussions is counterproductive. It convinces no one. Not those with the “gender critical” POV and not those who are not completely sold hard into one camp or the other. The tendency to lump any who object to the jump to that label as not with us so against us - to assume any questioning of such condemnation is support for bigotry, drives people AWAY from the position.
I see the rush to call people names instead of mutually respectful engagement as an exercise in looking for affirmation for those of your tribe, a chance to posture to score a thumbs up from those who need no convincing and to make each other feel smug as your circularly pleasure each other. It causes only harms.
3. Supporting someone’s ability to say something disagreeable is not supporting what they say.
4. Allowing an employer to have control over an employee’s expressions of belief outside of the workplace that do not impact the workplace or are at the workplace (and there was, to my knowledge, no charge made that Forstater’s lack of contract renewal was based on impact to the workplace), is to me a very frightening precedent. We’ve seen some conservative employers try it and objected to it strongly. Saying that it is wrong if some the expressed belief is one you think is okay while the employer finds it horribly offensive, but okay to do if you are the one who finds the expression horribly offensive, just does not fly.
I don’t think firing someone based on their tweeting activities is anything like punishing someone based on their beliefs. We can believe whatever we want to be believe and face zero ramifications as long as we keep those beliefs to ourselves and to trusted confidants. As soon as we get on a virtual soapbox and opinionate, we are leaving the door open for consequences. Including consequences we don’t like.
A year ago, a co-worker of mine was fired because she was saying negative things about office management on her Facebook. She wouldn’t have been fired if she had kept her kvetching to friends and family like people have done since the beginning of time. She was fired for kvetching in public. Is that a harsh penalty? Yes. But it is a stupid prize for a stupid game.
Forstater played a stupid game. She will likely land with another employer who shares her views, though. That is how these things usually work.
Just to clarify - what would be your take be on an employee being fired, or having their contract not renewed, by a “pro life” employer who views all abortion as murder, for their pro choice tweeting and outside of work advocacy?
It would depend on the circumstances, wouldn’t it? Though in an at-will state in the US there wouldn’t be much the fired employee could do about it.
I used to work for a record store chain with a very lenient dress code. But we were all told no political attire. If I’d come in with something as innocuous as a “Mike Dukakis for president” t-shirt, I would have gotten a strong talking to at least. Twice and I would have been fired. If a record store clerk can figure this out, surely a think tank employee can.
Forstater’s actions were putting the think tank’s fund-raising at risk. Surely that’s a good reason to let someone go.
That’s the transmedicalist position. Things have moved on - which is the reason for the move to remove the whole dysphoria thing from the law. Because if someone wants to be the other (or a third) gender for any reason… what’s the harm ? Why gatekeep it ?
OK sooo what are you trying to accomplish, exactly, by repping for them ? If you really believe their position results in more harm than good overall ?
To whit. Again, TERF is not a name, or a slur. It’s a descriptive. It’s basic nomenclature.
Sit down, Voltaire. Nobody’s getting thrown in the Bastille here.
And yet it happens all the time. People get fired when they get outed as Nazis. Or unionists. Or pro-gay. Or anti-gay. Or anarchists. Or fundie. Or felons. Or misogynists. Speech comes with consequences. You live with them or you shut yer gob, that’s the binary choice.
Doubly so when you deliberately go against your employer’s stated wishes. Again, do you think that flies in any job, for any “it” you’re politely but firmly asked to “stop doing it” ?
Its tone-policing. It really has nothing to do with the subject at hand and I can’t even believe you dedicated so many words to it. The so-called gender-critical movement is dedicated to removing rights of transgender people in society. So far in the United States they have accomplished banning transgender people serving in the US military, they are are rolling back hard-won health-care rights, and you actually think calling them names is the problem?
Does it matter if they are motivated by bigotry or not? The results are exactly the same.
Your point number 2 is almost indistinguishable from your point number 1. You expect them not to call them names even though they are one of the most marginalised people in society. The power dynamics at play here are completely at odds in this debate. Transgender people aren’t even represented in this thread or these forums: we have to fight the debate on their behalf.
The gender-critical position hinges on misgendering, that transwomen are not women and should be called men, they have no hesitation dead-naming transgender people, yet you can’t be bothered calling them out at all for “the rush to call people names.” Insulting transgender people is inherent in the gender-critical position. Its hypocritical for you to be calling out one side for saying “TERF” and not the other side for saying “HIM.”
This is your third point that essentially says the same thing. Its all about the debate to you.
Fuck the debate.
I say fuck the debate to race-realists who question my right to exist, who twist the science to claim they are superior to me simply because of the colour of my skin.
And I say fuck the debate to gender critical folk who question transgender people’s right to exist, who think that biological absolutism is more important than people living a life that liberates them.
People are welcome to say things that are disagreeable. But I don’t owe them a platform to say those things.
Its not like this sort of thing doesn’thappenallthetime. This isn’t a precedent. This happens all the time in the United States of America.
You think this is frightening? Imagine a movement existing which had the explicit intent if taking away your right to exist. And imagine that people actually thought the problem isn’t that “they want to take away their right to exist” but that “people might call these people bad names.” Which is more frightening?
It isn’t about what the employer “finds offensive.”
I would fire an openly racist employee because continuing to employee them would make my workplace unsafe. And I would fire an openly transphobic employee for the very same reason. It isn’t just about “expressing a belief.”
The gender critical movement isn’t just about expressing beliefs: its about taking away the rights of transgender people, its about opposing protections for transgender people. The world is seeing a rise in authoritarian leadership, the President of the United States is openly attacking the free press, in the UK the Tories openly talk about taking away the rights of media outlets that they see as “attacking them”, in Australia agents of the state have raided newsrooms and the Prime Minister has called for the rights of protestors to be curtailed.
We are at a very dangerous point in history. They are coming after the immigrants and they are coming after the muslims and they are coming after the transgender people and they aren’t going to just stop there. Gender critical talking points are not just opinion, they are propaganda. It isn’t enough to just debate them.
You said you were going to come at the issues “one at a time” but laughably you didn’t even manage to talk about the actual issues.
My take would be that that was a shitty employer, and they oughtn’t to have done that. And yet yes, I’d have no problem with a pro-trans employer doing it to a transphobe-posting employee.
Is it some kind of gotcha, that I approve of different actions for speech I agree with vs speech I disagree with? Should I feel *ashamed *for having my morals? Well, I don’t.
I’m personally indifferent if someone wants to change pronouns, their name, or their stated gender on official records, even if they don’t have gender dysphoria.
But what I’m hearing in this thread and elsewhere is that it’s considered bigotry if people don’t * perceive* all trans folk (including non-dysphoric ones) the same way they perceive non-trans with respect to gender/sex. It’s also considered bigotry if you don’t believe gender is some organic mental trait that can exist independently of biological sex. To not be transphobic, it seems you must subscribe to the view that all it takes to be a certain gender is to “feel” like that gender, even though this is a subjective, undefined thing and NOT scientifically supported.
So if this take is accurate, I just learned that I’m a transphobic bigot. Despite the fact that I believe the government shouldn’t prevent trans folk from living as their identified gender, and despite the fact that I make every attempt to treat trans folk as I treat anyone else. I’m being called hateful because a biological male who presents as such (meaning, she hasn’t medically or surgically transitioned) will always register to my senses as a man—not a woman. This “registration” occurs because it’s instinctual for me to perceive biological sex before the social construct that is gender. I don’t see gender the same way that many of y’all do.
