Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

LGBT in schools vs religious parents

Disagree tbh.
If a member or supporter of a group like Britain First, BNP, C18 etc. is seen on one of their demonstrations or is leafleting for them (in their own time) I would be for sacking them if they worked in a school.

With those views it would be impossible for them to treat all the kids and their families fairly or equally and I would not trust them near my kids if they were at the same school
You can't see the dangers in this to anarchists or socialists? And how far do you take it? Does it apply to post-16 education? Healthcare? The legal system? All public services? Who draws up the list of organisations and/or positions that are banned?

This is not a hypothetical, in the past anarchists or socialists have lost jobs (and more) because of their their political beliefs, and in a climate where marches for a ceasefire in Palestine are being called hate marches it is not so very out there to see the implications there. Staff working in education that have objected strongly to Prevent have been sacked. In the US (and elsewhere) we are seeing LGBT+ people being designated as a danger to children.

Empowering the government and employers with the ability to determine which political groups are 'legitimate' is a dangerous route. Adding to the power to dismiss workers is playing into capitals hands. Any serious union rep knows that they are already likely to be targeted, giving employers more weapons is not going to help workplace organising.

Moreover relying on capital and the state to police this is part what has got us the present situation with the populist hard right. The opposition to the hard right needs to be political. Populist hard right groups would rub their hands to have members sacked for leafletting.
 
Last edited:
You can't see the dangers in this to anarchists or socialists? And how far do you take it? Does it apply to post-16 education? Healthcare? The legal system? All public services? Who draws up the list of organisations and/or positions that are banned?

This is not a hypothetical, in the past anarchists or socialists have lost jobs (and more) because of their their political beliefs, and in a climate where marches for a ceasefire in Palestine are being called hate marches it is not so very out there to see the implications there. Staff working in education that have objected strongly to Prevent have been sacked. In the US (and elsewhere) we are seeing LGBT+ people being designated as a danger to children.

Empowering the government and employers with the ability to determine which political groups are 'legitimate' is a dangerous route. And only compounds the power to dismiss workers is playing into capitals hands. Any serious union rep knows that they are already likely to be targeted, giving employers more weapons is not going to help workplace organising.

Moreover relying on capital and the state to police this is part what has got us the present situation with the populist hard right. The opposition to the hard right needs to be political. Populist hard right groups would rub their hands to have members sacked for leafletting.
This ia a very valid question but I can't see why any list of employment contexts needs to be drawn up, tbh. If any employee declares that a personal belief precludes them from providing service to certain people they are clearly not in the right job. Although employers will discriminate against anarchists or socialists, I can't recall cases of where comrades have lost posts because they have said they would not provide a service to say the children of tory voters. As a former union rep. I can't envisage what sort of defence could be offered to a worker saying that they would discriminate against some service users.
 
How come it’s always middle aged men who have a problem with us existing?
I am willing to bet there isn’t a single poster on this board - not a single one - who has a problem with trans people existing.

It’s this sort of absolute bollocks from both sides of the debate/argument/shitshow that makes this whole bloody mess so depressing.

Lots of trans people have been shouted off these boards/threads. Lots of cis women have been shouted off these boards/threads.

Perhaps both sides should consider why that is.
 
I am willing to bet there isn’t a single poster on this board - not a single one - who has a problem with trans people existing.

'Trans women can exist, but not as women' is the version we've had on this thread, in as many words, from more than one poster. Which is a bit like I've got no problem with snooker players, but I'm not having people hitting little coloured balls with a stick.
 
Last edited:
This ia a very valid question but I can't see why any list of employment contexts needs to be drawn up, tbh. If any employee declares that a personal belief precludes them from providing service to certain people they are clearly not in the right job. Although employers will discriminate against anarchists or socialists, I can't recall cases of where comrades have lost posts because they have said they would not provide a service to say the children of tory voters. As a former union rep. I can't envisage what sort of defence could be offered to a worker saying that they would discriminate against some service users.
That's not the position CS was advocating though.
They were arguing that people leafletting (and presumably standing) for political groups should be barred/fired as it would, a priori, make them incapable of treating people equally.

There is a big, big difference between someone getting fired for refusing to serve someone and them being fired for leafletting for a political group outside of work time.
 
You can't see the dangers in this to anarchists or socialists? And how far do you take it? Does it apply to post-16 education? Healthcare? The legal system? All public services? Who draws up the list of organisations and/or positions that are banned?

This is not a hypothetical, in the past anarchists or socialists have lost jobs (and more) because of their their political beliefs, and in a climate where marches for a ceasefire in Palestine are being called hate marches it is not so very out there to see the implications there. Staff working in education that have objected strongly to Prevent have been sacked. In the US (and elsewhere) we are seeing LGBT+ people being designated as a danger to children.

Empowering the government and employers with the ability to determine which political groups are 'legitimate' is a dangerous route. And only compounds the power to dismiss workers is playing into capitals hands. Any serious union rep knows that they are already likely to be targeted, giving employers more weapons is not going to help workplace organising.

Moreover relying on capital and the state to police this is part what has got us the present situation with the populist hard right. The opposition to the hard right needs to be political. Populist hard right groups would rub their hands to have members sacked for leafletting.
Don't go spoiling the bun fight by trying to get back to the original subject
 
That's not the position CS was advocating though.
They were arguing that people leafletting (and presumably standing) for political groups should be barred/fired as it would, a priori, make them incapable of treating people equally.

There is a big, big difference between someone getting fired for refusing to serve someone and them being fired for leafletting for a political group outside of work time.
Yes, I take that point...but, that difference becomes somewhat blurred when that leafletting/advocating/campaigning is based upon notions of excluding sections of society based on race, sex or sexual orientation etc. There are adherents of extremist positions, for example those espousing eugenics, who should not have any place in public service.
 
January bus station imagination wise properly sanguine marshmallow.

Well it's a bun fight in the end. But what if you don't like someone's 'master debater' shtick?

Anyway I'll shut up* after saying I'm sorry to see another poster leave.

*Unless provoked
 
You can't see the dangers in this to anarchists or socialists? And how far do you take it? Does it apply to post-16 education? Healthcare? The legal system? All public services? Who draws up the list of organisations and/or positions that are banned?

This is not a hypothetical, in the past anarchists or socialists have lost jobs (and more) because of their their political beliefs, and in a climate where marches for a ceasefire in Palestine are being called hate marches it is not so very out there to see the implications there. Staff working in education that have objected strongly to Prevent have been sacked. In the US (and elsewhere) we are seeing LGBT+ people being designated as a danger to children.

Empowering the government and employers with the ability to determine which political groups are 'legitimate' is a dangerous route. And only compounds the power to dismiss workers is playing into capitals hands. Any serious union rep knows that they are already likely to be targeted, giving employers more weapons is not going to help workplace organising.

Moreover relying on capital and the state to police this is part what has got us the present situation with the populist hard right. The opposition to the hard right needs to be political. Populist hard right groups would rub their hands to have members sacked for leafletting.
Trade Unionists, Socialists and Anarchists have campaigned many time to get fascists sacked. Having a white supremacist / fascist in a school is a massive safe guarding issue...having a socialist in a school is not so it is a false equivalency.

Fascists can not treat everyone one equally. They believe certain people are inferior to others. Therefore they can not be allowed to work with school students.
The same is true in in post 16 education and the health care profession. It is also true in all areas of public sector work.

It seems to me that you are equating my view with the view that the state should be called on to ban fascist events which is not what I am saying.

Public sector jobs ask for all staff to be committed to equality ... a fascist isn't... therefore should not be in those jobs.

So I am very comfortable with my view.
 
Have you noticed that there's literally zero GC women on this thread? I know it's fun to say that only middle aged men care about this now the female opposing voices have been scared off.
the numbers of GC women have be vastly inflated by the oxygen of publicity the likes of Forstater and Bailey were given...

then of course there are those who had an epiphany whn they saw the likes of KJK for their trueselves and just how misogynistic TERFery actually is
 
I am willing to bet there isn’t a single poster on this board - not a single one - who has a problem with trans people existing.

It’s this sort of absolute bollocks from both sides of the debate/argument/shitshow that makes this whole bloody mess so depressing.

Lots of trans people have been shouted off these boards/threads. Lots of cis women have been shouted off these boards/threads.

Perhaps both sides should consider why that is.
when people claims that David Bell has some sensible and good ideas on this they clearly are demonstratign that they do not beleive transgender people should be allowed ot exist
David Bell is directly linked with Genspect and other Conversion Therapists

as for people being shouted off the boards ? who is doing the shouting off ? cisgender men ...

there is also a point at which trasns folx get tired of rehashing the same stuff again and again, often with the definitive, evidence based and/or UK NICE approved clinical guidelines and the relevant statutue and case law at hand ... to be told by some knuckle dragger than the entire body of clinical evidence and UK law is wrong becasue 'hurr durr innies and outies '
 
when people claims that David Bell has some sensible and good ideas on this they clearly are demonstratign that they do not beleive transgender people should be allowed ot exist ...

No they aren't, and the fact that you're directing this at a poster who is extremely well known not to hold such beliefs, demonstrates your mendacious ignorance. As did your subsequent charge that the same poster was promoting child torture.
 
No they aren't, and the fact that you're directing this at a poster who is extremely well known not to hold such beliefs, demonstrates your mendacious ignorance. As did your subsequent charge that the same poster was promoting child torture.
I don't know whether you think you have some great insight but your mendacious and wilful ignorance on this topic is marked.

It's abundantly clear you have no idea on the Basic Sicences
It's abundantly clear you have no ide on the clinical evidence
It's also abundantly clear you have no idea on what the law is and how it has worked successfully for decades, after the legal basis for inclusion was codified in both case law and legislation in the 1990s
 
Non-gender-critical cis women aren't exactly beating the door down to appear on this thread, either. Maybe think about why that might be.
becasue they know that cisgender men wil accuse them of beign trans or accuse them of being misogynists

it;s a standard tactic of transphobes to police women and accuse those who are actually feminist of being misogynists , while their Genital Crank misogyny runs wild
 
I don't think anyone here has a problem with you 'existing'. There's some wider unresolved arguments though that are difficult to discuss without being condemned as a bigot.

But what is being argued is that trans woman should not be permitted to exist as they do now and have done for decades. That seeing trans women as women is preposterous and that trans women should be prevented from using spaces which have provided dignity and safety for much of their lives to date. That trans people should be denied services if a victim of sexual violence, are very likely to be raped if they go to jail and should be prevented from taking part in sport and other activities in any meaningful way. That they should be outed as trans constantly and forced into dangerous and humiliating situations if they want to participate in society. Oh and you should listen to this guy who wants to try and cure trans people using methods known to be harmful.

And of course the people proposing this will say I don't want any of that and usually mutter something about third spaces, which don't exist, would do little to solve any of those problems anyway and which are never likely to exist in any meaningful way because trans women only represent one in a thousand of the population according to the recent census. If transphobia is escalated to the point of bathroom bills, then how likely is it that business owners and council tax payers will be happy to spend billions creating third spaces that will be empty for most of the time - at least until people start demanding all gender nonconforming and visibly LGBTQ people use the gender freak's toilet.

So what is being said is that I have no problem with trans people existing but only on terms that trans people themselves recognise would be unbearable with little realistic prospect for any alternatives to minimise the harm. And most trans people have experienced sexual violence and certainly harassment, have experienced that it can be dangerous to be suddenly outed, have experienced humiliation and abuse for being trans and often gender nonconforming prior to transition. Many trans people have experienced medical professionals denying their identity and seeking to test out their pet theories on trans people. They don't want to go to a gender clinic to be confronted by some inexperienced crank like Bell with his latest wacky take that it was the internet made them trans.

Then when trans people say fuck that, I couldn't exist in that world, that would make my life impossible, a society like that would mean trans people couldn't exist, they are accused of being hysterical and unreasonable by the very people proposing that's how they should live. People who aren't trans, have not thought through the implications, and in a lot of ways don't really have the tools to think through the implications in the way trans people do. And also frankly, for all their fake pity, don't really seem to care.
 
Last edited:
You can't see the dangers in this to anarchists or socialists? And how far do you take it? Does it apply to post-16 education? Healthcare? The legal system? All public services? Who draws up the list of organisations and/or positions that are banned?

This is not a hypothetical, in the past anarchists or socialists have lost jobs (and more) because of their their political beliefs, and in a climate where marches for a ceasefire in Palestine are being called hate marches it is not so very out there to see the implications there. Staff working in education that have objected strongly to Prevent have been sacked. In the US (and elsewhere) we are seeing LGBT+ people being designated as a danger to children.

Empowering the government and employers with the ability to determine which political groups are 'legitimate' is a dangerous route. Adding to the power to dismiss workers is playing into capitals hands. Any serious union rep knows that they are already likely to be targeted, giving employers more weapons is not going to help workplace organising.

Moreover relying on capital and the state to police this is part what has got us the present situation with the populist hard right. The opposition to the hard right needs to be political. Populist hard right groups would rub their hands to have members sacked for leafletting.

Thing is the law is so vague around this now the only way you can know if a belief is protected is to go to court. Democratic Socialism was found to be a protected belief after the GMB of all people went to court to argue it shouldn't be. Revolutionary socialism might not be. The judge in Forstater found that Nazism would not be, although whether the average far righter would fall into that category is untested.

I do agree with most of your post but the law is a mess on this and a one size fits all approach isn't working. There's a difference between someone being sacked from ASDA for being a UKIP supporter and someone being sacked from the Morning Star for the same reason. Or a passionate economic liberal and Thatcherite being kicked out of a socialist political party. Or refusing to serve a customer because they are black and refusing to give a spot to a homophobic comedian in a gay bar.

It's not currently illegal to discriminate against someone for their opinions, only their philosophical beliefs, and perhaps it should be in workplaces where they are irrelevent to their role. But some beliefs might be important and relevant to someone's job. The Equality Act does contain some bodges to try and minimise some of these problems but it's anyone's guess where the law might fall which makes people on both sides of the equation reluctant to go to court. Even a Judge got it wrong first time round in the Forstater case, and some of the findings in that could be overturned if a similar case reaches a higher court. From the legal side I think the Grainger test needs relooking at. From the worker/trade union side I think there needs to be a discussion and some clarity of demands around this issue because it's not simple and protecting a worker in one instance might mean another worker is being harassed.
 
Back
Top Bottom