Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Zorya

Lily Madigan, 21 year old transwoman, is the Women's Officer for the Labour Party in the UK.
The role -

The Women’s Officer is the key representative of women members on the executive of the CLP, playing a key role in decision making and strategy within your CLP and ensuring that women are fully involved in the work of the local party. The Women’s Officer also takes a leading role in making sure that the campaigning work of the constituency reaches out and engages with women voters.

CLP Women’s Officers work to make sure their local party is a welcoming and engaging place for women. They head up events where women are brought together, both to empower everyone and knowledge share. A key part of their role is also to recruit more women members – and then to encourage and support them to become activists.

Lily Madigan's response to Maya Forstater


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D53rdu9XsAABh-P.jpg

KikiLaRue

Zorya wrote: »

In general, it doesn't matter at all whether it is a man or woman who is dismissed or punished for having unacceptable political opinions. I support both having the right. It is not incitement to hatred.

I think people on this thread referring to free speech and incitement to hatred are missing the point entirely.

She hasn't been arrested, and her freedom of speech hasn't been impinged. She also hasn't been accused of incitement to hatred.

A company has made the decision not to extend her contract on the basis that her views don't represent the values they stand for. Simple as that.

They have not restricted her freedom of speech, but she is facing a consequence as a result. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences.

You can't be a high profile business person AND an activist and expect that it won't be an issue when the two conflict.

Nobelium

Checkmate19 wrote: »

Elite men against elite woman can happen. Women cant compete against men in sport its genetics. Simple. Thats why there is male and female sport. Dont be bleedin stupid.

that's what they said about black athletes vs white. Now black athletes kick white ass. Today we have transphobism as well as racism.
thankfully trans matriarchy is replacing the patriarchy of white men.

Candamir

LLMMLL wrote: »

If it becomes evident that female prisoners are particularly at risk from self Id trans women then one can claim it's an issue.

LLMMLL wrote: »

In the US no. I don't think gay men are safe and many straight men aren't safe either in these spaces.

In Ireland? I've actually no idea.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Hard to find anyone other than Karen White. I don't think it's the widespread issue you're making it out to be.

So even though you (seem to) accept that trans men are not safe in men’s prisons,(but don’t seem to want to actually say it) and that female prisoners have been harmed by trans women prisoners, you’re still ok with going against men’s and particularly woman’s rights to be housed separately, and you want to wait until the assaults and rapes happen in Ireland until you change your mind.

Look, the fact is that women have rights, and that trans people also have rights. There are points where these rights come into conflict - sports and prisons being two of them. Rather than shutting down the conversation with cries of Transphobes! or repeating the ‘trans women are biological women’ mantra, would it not be better to accept there’s an issue and find a way to solve it to every bodies advantage, in so far as we can.
These issues will end up backfiring on the trans community and increasing animosity towards them.

BattleCorp

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I think people on this thread referring to free speech and incitement to hatred are missing the point entirely.

She hasn't been arrested, and her freedom of speech hasn't been impinged. She also hasn't been accused of incitement to hatred.

Yes, her freedom of speech has been impinged. Not directly, but by taking away her livelihood. Great way to shut up people who have different views from your own. Take away their livelihood.

A company has made the decision not to extend her contract on the basis that her views don't represent the values they stand for. Simple as that.

So if you work for any company, anywhere, you run the risk of being sacked for having a view that might offend someone? Fair enough if someone says sh1t that's illegal, but you shouldn't be sacked for airing your (legally allowable) opinion or facilitating a discussion.

I'm talking about legally allowable opinions here, not ones such as 'kill the Jews' or something like that.

They have not restricted her freedom of speech, but she is facing a consequence as a result. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences.

I would not agree with you that they have not restricted her freedom of speech. It is sending out the message that people aren't allowed to have different ideas anymore and anybody who wants to discuss such things won't have a livelihood so they had better shut the fcuk up.

You can't be a high profile business person AND an activist and expect that it won't be an issue when the two conflict.

Plenty of high profile business people are activists. It's just that this trans thing is the sacred cow at the moment.

khaldrogo

LLMMLL wrote:

Male bodied trans women are women. Cis men are not.

Jesus wept........this PC culture, virtue signalling, SJW crap is gone too far.

A person with a penis IS a man. A person with a vagina IS a woman. What they might identify as DOES NOT change simple biology no matter how much you wish it did

p1akuw47h5r3it

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It really depends what kind of job you’re in and what you signed up for. If you are deemed to have broken the terms of your contract, I should be able to sack you.

Important to note in this instance the woman wasn’t even sacked, the company just made a decision not to renew their contract with her.

But it doesn't depend on what kind of job your in, it down to the desecration of the employer which was my point.

khaldrogo

Candamir wrote:

You don’t see a problem with your ideology here in a prison situation? A self identifying non medically or surgically violent male bodied trans woman housed in the general female population?

I would say it is more worrying the other way round with a trans man in a male prison.
With the trans woman we are concerned that they may attack a woman but if a trans man who still had a vagina was put in a male prison they would be in serious real danger.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

IN answer to your question: Same way you prove any other form of discrimination: take your evidence to a court or tribunal.

Now: What about the right of the individual to run a profitable business and have a liveihood? Is that also "tough"?

People are responsible for the consequences of their actions - not their employers.

But what happens if you can't prove it?

Yes but those consequences should not extend to losing your job.

If I get a job in Ashers baking company and decide to get involved with pro-choice campaign in N. Ireland, do you feel they should be able to fire me for doing so? Given that I'll more then likely be airing my opinion in public.

KikiLaRue

BattleCorp wrote: »

Plenty of high profile business people are activists. It's just that this trans thing is the sacred cow at the moment.

You're mistaken in what freedom of speech is and how it can be taken away. You can't "indirectly" take away someone's freedom of speech.

I think you mean lots of Founders and Business Owners are activists, very few business people who are employed by a corporation are also activists.

"Legally allowable" is not the standard companies work to. You might have the legally allowable opinion that abortion is murder, and though I'd disagree with you, you're entitled to hold that view.

However, if your company notices you tweet about it every day and you spend your weekends holding up posters of dead foetuses outside hospitals, I think they are entitled to say "We have a reputation to uphold. Our clients are leaving because it's effecting our reputation, our bottom line is taking a hit. This person is not representative of what our company stands for and therefore we are letting him go."

khaldrogo

That would be illegal





You're poor attempt at sarcasm aside, if you don't believe this poster would id as a woman for whatever reason why do you believe all the other ones out there so easily? You don't know ever single trans person out there or their reasons for being trans

p1akuw47h5r3it

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You're mistaken in what freedom of speech is and how it can be taken away. You can't "indirectly" take away someone's freedom of speech.

I think you mean lots of Founders and Business Owners are activists, very few business people who are employed by a corporation are also activists.

"Legally allowable" is not the standard companies work to. You might have the legally allowable opinion that abortion is murder, and though I'd disagree with you, you're entitled to hold that view.

However, if your company notices you tweet about it every day and you spend your weekends holding up posters of dead foetuses outside hospitals, I think they are entitled to say "We have a reputation to uphold. Our clients are leaving because it's effecting our reputation, our bottom line is taking a hit. This person is not representative of what our company stands for and therefore we are letting him go."

So someone should be fired for tweeting about something they may feel strongly about?

You would have had no problem with, for example, Dr. Peter Moylan losing his job for appearing on RTE airing pro-choice views?

eagle eye

khaldrogo wrote:

I would say it is more worrying the other way round with a trans man in a male prison. With the trans woman we are concerned that they may attack a woman but if a trans man who still had a vagina was put in a male prison they would be in serious real danger.

For sure. They'd most likely be kept away from all others because there'd be freaks that would love to have sex with them and crazies that would love to beat the hell out of them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

IN answer to your question: Same way you prove any other form of discrimination: take your evidence to a court or tribunal.

Now: What about the right of the individual to run a profitable business and have a liveihood? Is that also "tough"?

People are responsible for the consequences of their actions - not their employers.

But what happens if you can't prove it?

Yes but those consequences should not extend to losing your job.

If I get a job in Ashers baking company and decide to get involved with pro-choice campaign in N. Ireland, do you feel they should be able to fire me for doing so? Given that I'll more then likely be airing my opinion in public.

Then you get and record proof. I'm sure you know how the legal system works.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of the rights of the individual to run a business.

I find it hypocritical on the information provided that you are all for protecting one person's livielyhood while totally fine with destroying someibe else's.

Atoms for Peace

Putin, Xi, the Ayotollah etc. must be laughing at how ineffective and decadent is the west has gotten.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Then you get and record proof. I'm sure you know how the legal system works.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of the rights of the individual to run a business.

I find it hypocritical on the information provided that you are all for protecting one person's livielyhood while totally fine with destroying someibe else's.

I did in my first point on the topic. The rights of the individual trump the rights of the business. As I said you can put out in the public arena that you do not support your employees views.

What if you can't record proof?

emo72

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Putin, Xi, the Ayotollah etc. must be laughing at how ineffective and decadent is the west has gotten.

I think the West is in need of a good asteroid strike. Maybe finding food and shelter would concentrate the mind then.

KikiLaRue

DanDan6592 wrote: »

So someone should be fired for tweeting about something they may feel strongly about?

You would have had no problem with, for example, Dr. Peter Moylan losing his job for appearing on RTE airing pro-choice views?

We warn kids literally all the time about being careful about what they post on social media in case their current or future employers see it.

Peter Boylan was speaking in his capacity as a doctor and an expert on the topic, it’s not comparable.

p1akuw47h5r3it

KikiLaRue wrote: »

We warn kids literally all the time about being careful about what they post on social media in case their current or future employers see it.

Peter Boylan was speaking in his capacity as a doctor and an expert on the topic, it’s not comparable.

So only the experts can air their opinion then? I as a mere run of the mill private citizen cannot.

Yes because they might not get hired based on something they may have said 10 years previously. If anything that shows why this is necessary.

KikiLaRue

DanDan6592 wrote: »

So only the experts can air their opinion then? I as a mere run of the mill private citizen cannot.

My god you’re a silly sausage.

We are talking about a situation where someone’s job and their activism came into conflict. Since Boylan was speaking in his capacity as a doctor there was no such conflict. So it’s not the same thing. Understand?

There’s some amount of people out there who think freedom of speech means being able to say anything, anywhere, any time with zero consequences. That’s not how it works. Read up on it.

p1akuw47h5r3it

KikiLaRue wrote: »

My god you’re a silly sausage.

We are talking about a situation where someone’s job and their activism came into conflict. Since Boylan was speaking in his capacity as a doctor there was no such conflict. So it’s not the same thing. Understand?

There’s some amount of people out there who think freedom of speech means being able to say anything, anywhere, any time with zero consequences. That’s not how it works. Read up on it.

He was there to promote the removal of the 8th amendment, and is opnley pro-choice. Ofcourse it's the same thing. It was political activism. And regardless what does it matter? If he comes into conflict with his emplyers inclusion principle then he's come into conflict with it.

I don't believe you should be able to say anything anywhere without consequence, but that losing your job should not be one of the consequences provided what you said isn't illegal. If you can't understand that nuance it's you whose the silly sausage.

BattleCorp

KikiLaRue wrote: »

My god you’re a silly sausage.

We are talking about a situation where someone’s job and their activism came into conflict. Since Boylan was speaking in his capacity as a doctor there was no such conflict. So it’s not the same thing. Understand?

There’s some amount of people out there who think freedom of speech means being able to say anything, anywhere, any time with zero consequences. That’s not how it works. Read up on it.

There is a legal right to protest here in Ireland. If I want to stand outside a hospital with an anti-abortion sign on my time off, that's my right. I don't want to do that by the way, just using it as an example.

Should I be fired from my job for doing that, no.

BattleCorp

KikiLaRue wrote: »

There’s some amount of people out there who think freedom of speech means being able to say anything, anywhere, any time with zero consequences. That’s not how it works. Read up on it.

So, what's the craic then? Freedom of speech only applies if everyone agrees with you? Just so long as you don't have a differing view, then all is well yeah?

You have to allow different views, even if you believe them to be wrong (as long as it isn't illegal).

I agree with consequences for saying stuff that is illegal, but consequences for hurting someone's feelings, get outta dat.

KikiLaRue

BattleCorp wrote: »

There is a legal right to protest here in Ireland. If I want to stand outside a hospital with an anti-abortion sign on my time off, that's my right. I don't want to do that by the way, just using it as an example.

Should I be fired from my job for doing that, no.

You have the right to protest. You don’t necessarily have the right to keep your job if you do.

If you break the terms of your contract with your employer, they can fire you. You signed that contract when you joined the firm; you agreed to abide by their policies. So it depends what they have laid out on those policies.

They can fire you if you repeatedly show up late because you agreed to work certain hours. They can fire you for repeatedly breaking the dress code because you agreed to abide by it.

When you signed up to work for them, you agreed to a whole bunch of stuff and if you get fired for breaching your contract, that’s on you.

p1akuw47h5r3it

BattleCorp wrote: »

There is a legal right to protest here in Ireland. If I want to stand outside a hospital with an anti-abortion sign on my time off, that's my right. I don't want to do that by the way, just using it as an example.

Should I be fired from my job for doing that, no.

But sure consequences

p1akuw47h5r3it

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You have the right to protest. You don’t necessarily have the right to keep your job if you do.

If you break the terms of your contract with your employer, they can fire you. You signed that contract when you joined the firm; you agreed to abide by their policies. So it depends what they have laid out on those policies.

They can fire you if you repeatedly show up late because you agreed to work certain hours. They can fire you for repeatedly breaking the dress code because you agreed to abide by it.

When you signed up to work for them, you agreed to a whole bunch of stuff and if you get fired for breaching your contract, that’s on you.

Yes and we're saying you should have the right to keep your job for protesting, hence, yiu can't lose your job for airing/ having political opinion. It should be protected speech.

BattleCorp

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You have the right to protest. You don’t necessarily have the right to keep your job if you do.

If you break the terms of your contract with your employer, they can fire you. You signed that contract when you joined the firm; you agreed to abide by their policies. So it depends what they have laid out on those policies.

They can fire you if you repeatedly show up late because you agreed to work certain hours. They can fire you for repeatedly breaking the dress code because you agreed to abide by it.

When you signed up to work for them, you agreed to a whole bunch of stuff and if you get fired for breaching your contract, that’s on you.

The definition of what is breach of contract is too wide. Offend anyone and you're gone. Soon you won't be able to fart on your day off and you'll be sackable.

I'd love to see what would happen in court if someone was sacked for attending a lawful protest on their day off.

Zorya

Silly sausage, made me laugh, oddly apt for thread.

Say I have an opinion that is unacceptable (Never! I hear you roar...) and my employer sacks me, so I go self employed but no village hall will rent me rooms to teach pole dancing because of my dirty opinions, so I am going to the dole for subsistence but the govt has passed legislation compelling speech and making certain opinions illegal and making people who hold them barred from state services. Mad, you might say, and yet this is how totalitarian systems roll out eventually.

Just let people make their opinions in public as long as they do not directly incite violence and less of this weird crap please.

KikiLaRue

BattleCorp wrote: »

The definition of what is breach of contract is too wide. Offend anyone and you're gone. Soon you won't be able to fart on your day off and you'll be sackable.

I'd love to see what would happen in court if someone was sacked for attending a lawful protest on their day off.

I don’t think you could get fired for simply attending a lawful protest. There have been loads of marches and protests here over the last few years and I’ve never heard of anything like that.

It could be different if you are a speaker at the protest and active on social media publicly on the topic, because you personally *may* be bringing your organisation into disrepute.

Atoms for Peace

If anybody sees the scutter I've posted on the internet I'd probably wind up on the dole. Thus empowering some other poor sap to post similarly on dole bashing threads and so it continues
It's the circle of life.