Here’s a news story for debate- man or woman

[Spandaubaggie]

Kind of feel sympathy for the woman who lost her job, but see the other side too- this is a weird one.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50858919

[Sliced]

I tried to find the tweets to try and make up my mind about the story. Basically she says:

"I don’t think being a woman/female is a matter of identity or womanly feelings. It is biology" before following up by stating that she'll use the pronouns that people identify with.

If she was being intentionally malicious or rude then, as Twitter is public, there's a case for her being fired IMO. However, that's not what has happened here. She wasn't rude, and whether I agree or not with her opinion it doesn't help ANYTHING just to fire someone who has an opinion that's "unwoke".

The hysteria of "someone has an opinion I don't like, therefore they must be X, Y, Z and we should punish them" is something I find very troubling and it's only going to make things more divisive.

The "left" keeps pushing me to the right and the "right" keeps pushing me to the left.

[Squid]

What other side? Denying that biological sex is real and can't be changed is a scientific fact. Yet people are arguing otherwise. This has already caused males to compete in women's sports, a male sex offender being put in a women's prison and assaulting women there and women being called bigots for not wanting smear and mammograms done by males in dresses.

Then you have crap like this. This male student was offered separate changing facilities. That wasn't good enough for them, they wanted to change with the girls. The spineless school allowed this to happen.

Watch the reaction of the girl in this video and imagine that was your daughter or sister: https://youtu.be/BG-9IfXtRgY

[Borin' Baggie]

Person doesn't have contract renewed by charity who feel that get views will negatively impact the way they operate due to their role , person then has a tantrum. Complete non-story and the fact she brought it to a tribunal is quite frankly a waste of time and money.

And, and frankly, the person involved in this seems like a massive arsehole. She wasn't fired, her contract wasn't renewed, and wanting to call other people whatever gender you want is not a protected political belief.

[Squid]

Person doesn't have contract renewed by charity who feel that get views will negatively impact the way they operate due to their role , person then has a tantrum. Complete non-story and the fact she brought it to a tribunal is quite frankly a waste of time and money.

And, and frankly, the person involved in this seems like a massive arsehole. She wasn't fired, her contract wasn't renewed, and wanting to call other people whatever gender you want is not a protected political belief.

"Views"

Believing that, however you wish to present yourself, you cannot change your biological sex is not a "view", it's biological fact!

She has been denied employment for stating biological facts. Anyone with half a brain should find that very worrying.

Also, a previous employment tribunal ruled that belief in climate change counted as a protected philosophical belief.

[Borin' Baggie]

Person doesn't have contract renewed by charity who feel that get views will negatively impact the way they operate due to their role , person then has a tantrum. Complete non-story and the fact she brought it to a tribunal is quite frankly a waste of time and money.

And, and frankly, the person involved in this seems like a massive arsehole. She wasn't fired, her contract wasn't renewed, and wanting to call other people whatever gender you want is not a protected political belief.

"Views"

Believing that, however you wish to present yourself, you cannot change your biological sex is not a "view", it's biological fact!

She has been denied employment for stating biological facts. Anyone with half a brain should find that very worrying.

Also, a previous employment tribunal ruled that belief in climate change counted as a protected philosophical belief.

It's about gender, not sex (and her opinions on sex are also wrong as being intersex or having XX male syndrome are biological facts). They're two separate things and need to be treated as such, gender dysphoria is a real thing and vilifying people who experience it isn't going to help anyone. By all means, criticise legislation like self-ID laws or issues around sports participation as is your right but dismissing the problem is moronic and doesn't help anyone.

And her contract wasn't renewed by a private think tank because they exercised their rights, especially one where the person involved could potentially not be able to conduct their role fairly and justly (it goes against the image of the company and could negatively impact her doing her forward facing role by deliberately misgendering a client which in turn impacts the business).

And the previous employment tribunal you mention centred around a redundancy and cited a completely different law to this one as justifiable reasons, it's a false equivalence.

[Squid]

Borin' Baggie pid='132031' dateline='1576808576']

Person doesn't have contract renewed by charity who feel that get views will negatively impact the way they operate due to their role , person then has a tantrum. Complete non-story and the fact she brought it to a tribunal is quite frankly a waste of time and money.

And, and frankly, the person involved in this seems like a massive arsehole. She wasn't fired, her contract wasn't renewed, and wanting to call other people whatever gender you want is not a protected political belief.

"Views"

Believing that, however you wish to present yourself, you cannot change your biological sex is not a "view", it's biological fact!

She has been denied employment for stating biological facts. Anyone with half a brain should find that very worrying.

Also, a previous employment tribunal ruled that belief in climate change counted as a protected philosophical belief.

It's about gender, not sex (and her opinions on sex are also wrong as being intersex or having XX male syndrome are biological facts). They're two separate things and need to be treated as such, gender dysphoria is a real thing and vilifying people who experience it isn't going to help anyone. By all means, criticise legislation like self-ID laws or issues around sports participation as is your right but dismissing the problem is moronic and doesn't help anyone.

And her contract wasn't renewed by a private think tank because they exercised their rights, especially one where the person involved could potentially not be able to conduct their role fairly and justly (it goes against the image of the company and could negatively impact her doing her forward facing role by deliberately misgendering a client which in turn impacts the business).

And the previous employment tribunal you mention centred around a redundancy and cited a completely different law to this one as justifiable reasons, it's a false equivalence.

Nope. Trans activists will now claim that they are biological women too. That's why they say it's fair for them to compete in women's sports (Rachel McKinnon and Laurel Hubbard).

No one has dismissed gender dysphoria, that's a strawman. But you can have sympathy for someone without having to believe something that is untrue. That isn't "vilification".

The "intersex" argument is irrelevant. People with disorders of sexual development are still categorised as male or female and they have also asked repeatedly to not be categorised with trans people.

Here's who Maya Forstater was accused of misgendering. A male SNP councillor called Gregor Murray who identifies as being transgender and non-binary. Maya called this male "he" instead of "they", which is apparently "being an arsehole" and "vilification"

Anyway, since you're a bit weird about women standing up for themselves, you may wish to check out the FairCop campaign instead 
https://www.faircop.org.uk/

[4-hero]

Person doesn't have contract renewed by charity who feel that get views will negatively impact the way they operate due to their role , person then has a tantrum. Complete non-story and the fact she brought it to a tribunal is quite frankly a waste of time and money.

And, and frankly, the person involved in this seems like a massive arsehole. She wasn't fired, her contract wasn't renewed, and wanting to call other people whatever gender you want is not a protected political belief.

Hi Caitlyn

[Borin' Baggie]

Person doesn't have contract renewed by charity who feel that get views will negatively impact the way they operate due to their role , person then has a tantrum. Complete non-story and the fact she brought it to a tribunal is quite frankly a waste of time and money.

And, and frankly, the person involved in this seems like a massive arsehole. She wasn't fired, her contract wasn't renewed, and wanting to call other people whatever gender you want is not a protected political belief.

"Views"

Believing that, however you wish to present yourself, you cannot change your biological sex is not a "view", it's biological fact!

She has been denied employment for stating biological facts. Anyone with half a brain should find that very worrying.

Also, a previous employment tribunal ruled that belief in climate change counted as a protected philosophical belief.

It's about gender, not sex (and her opinions on sex are also wrong as being intersex or having XX male syndrome are biological facts). They're two separate things and need to be treated as such, gender dysphoria is a real thing and vilifying people who experience it isn't going to help anyone. By all means, criticise legislation like self-ID laws or issues around sports participation as is your right but dismissing the problem is moronic and doesn't help anyone.

And her contract wasn't renewed by a private think tank because they exercised their rights, especially one where the person involved could potentially not be able to conduct their role fairly and justly (it goes against the image of the company and could negatively impact her doing her forward facing role by deliberately misgendering a client which in turn impacts the business).

And the previous employment tribunal you mention centred around a redundancy and cited a completely different law to this one as justifiable reasons, it's a false equivalence.

Nope. Trans activists will now claim that they are biological women too. That's why they say it's fair for them to compete in women's sports (Rachel McKinnon and Laurel Hubbard).

No one has dismissed gender dysphoria, that's a strawman. But you can have sympathy for someone without having to believe something that is untrue. That isn't "vilification".

The "intersex" argument is irrelevant. People with disorders of sexual development are still categorised as male or female and they have also asked repeatedly to not be categorised with trans people.

Here's who Maya Forstater was accused of misgendering. A male SNP councillor called Gregor Murray who identifies as being transgender and non-binary. Maya called this male "he" instead of "they", which is apparently "being an arsehole" and "vilification"

Anyway, since you're a bit weird about women standing up for themselves, you may wish to check out the FairCop campaign instead 
https://www.faircop.org.uk/

I'll think you'll find I don't agree on trans women being allowed to participate in women's sport for the most part, exceptions being unless there is an extreme burden of verified proof on the competitor to show that there isn't an advantage. I have similar issues regarding self-ID legislation potentially being abused.

Maya Forester dismissed gender dysphoria with her comments online, it ended up going further than that and amounted to more than just criticising the gender identity the one individual by saying, quite explicitly , trans women don't exist, they're actually men and I'll call them men. This is clearly referenced in the judgment report. I think if you do that you're both vilifying trans people and being an arsehole. Referencing sex is irrelevant, it's about gender. She's also doubly an arsehole for wasting taxpayer money on a pointless tribunal regarding her contract not being renewed by a private company.

And I'm being a bit arsey regarding this as, unlike 99% of the population, I've got a mate who's trans and she's much happier as a woman, so much so she's gone under the knife to have gender reassignment surgery after a long process. As such, I don't take too kindly to people essentially dismissing the concept of her existence when it's ultimately none of their business as it what gender they identify as.

As for that "faircop" site, I've got more than enough criticism with regards to the overarching powers of the police and the stupid amounts of money that are funneled into them to allow them to be the thought police. And I also welcome people to share their own personal views as should be their right. I'm less sympathetic with people wasting taxpayer money because their contract with a private company wasn't renewed.

[Squid]

    This is the individual who Maya Forstater was accused of misgendering.

She also did say that that she would respect people's pronouns. She just doesn't believe males can become female, which is correct. Transwomen are transwomen, not women. To say so isn't "denying anyone's existence".