LGBT in schools vs religious parents

[brogdale]

The second letter seems to nail it for me.

Yes, very clear and succinct; helpful.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

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.

i'm aware of a few who have had a mention on the 'disappeared urban posters' thread, but you're not allowed to mention on that thread that their last posting activity was on one of the trans related threads.

 

[InArduisFouette]

The second letter seems to nail it for me.

because it accurately reflects the views of the Basics Sciences evidence, the Clinical evidence and the law both as written and the case law.

unlike the clinically illiterate emissions of Fisken in the third letter which ignore what the pharmaceutical treatment for many protstate related problems are and also , as usual , for a transphobe ignoring that everyone has prostatic tissue ( usually referred to as Skene's glands in those with a vagina ...

 

[InArduisFouette]

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.

another thing the So-called Gender Critical forget is that the 'protected belief' tested in Forstater is solely those views expressed by Forstater before CGD decided to not recommission her services as an independent contractor

 

[kabbes]

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.

As usual, you express yourself very well and make it very clear what the issues are. And I have no desire to undermine a single element of your concerns. But purely out of a possibly misplaced hope that the path to polarisation can be disrupted, I’m going to make one attempt to highlight something that it feels to me you have missed (for understandable reasons, as I will cover). Sorry that, as usual, I go on for too long.

We all approach the world from our own subjective set of experiences, our own set of social identities, our own history of interactions. That means that we problematise any given situation from our own first-person perspective. If you’re from a marginalised group, whose very identity has a history of being troubled or even outright refused by others, it gives you a very particular perspective, and hence a particular way of problematising the challenges to that identity. Your experience teaches you that threats are not just to be shrugged off, but have an existential depth to them. As you say, there is a risk that if those who oppose you get their way, they could make your life impossible.

But, also as you say, “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.” So now take one of those people “who aren’t trans and who have not thought through the implications”. Those people who, “frankly,… don’t really care”. I’m not talking about the nutters that want to spend their free time having a go at you. I’m just talking about the people that don’t really get involved.

The implication of these people not having through the implications is not just that they don’t understand the issues. It is also that they do not problematise those issues in the same way that the activists (on both sides) do. Frankly, most of these people do not problematise the issues at all. For example, most of these people just don’t really care about what the law says on this issue one way or other. If forced to take a position about a law then they will construct one, then and there, in the moment. But if not forced, they don’t have a stable position on the matter, because there is no reason for them to have one. So even though to you it is of overwhelming import, these people don’t really have a meaningful, coherent “opinion” or “set of values” related to trans issues. They just don’t think about it at all.

But just because they lack expertise on the issues in question and they lack a stable position on policy, this does not mean that they don’t have any lay political perspective at all. It just means that their political understanding will be constructed by reference to which other political categorisations they connect this issue to, and by what concrete images and events stand in for the issues in their head. If pushed, they will construct an opinion by referencing this network of connected notions.

This has a bunch of implications to do with how these people can be successfully engaged with. The only one I really want to bring up is to note that these people are not the ones that have any interest in enacting laws against you. They won’t argue against gender reassignment laws. They won’t even get involved — like you say, they just don’t care. But, at the same time, they also don’t want to be told what to think about their own lives. They don’t want to be told what to think at all. And this is where it gets really difficult. Because these people are quite likely to respond in a way you will find offensive to being told that a gender reassignment certificate actually makes you that gender. They haven’t thought about the implications, remember? So that means they’re probably going to default to biological determinism in their own lay categorisation of gender.

And now you have to decide what your response is going to be to these people. Are you going to insist that they take into their hearts the full and frank recognition that the complexity of gender means that you can become something other than your initial presentation? Are you going to insist that they proclaim this new revelation? Or are you going to take the small-w win that they’re happy not to care either way about the law, even though they don’t really believe?

My warning, then, is that in fighting the battles against those who want to destroy you, you risk losing the war with respect to the vast majority who don’t even know they are in a fight in the first place. If you treat everybody the same way, when they respond in a way you find offensive, you aren’t actually creating a new, stable political expertise or awakening in the unaware. You’re kind of doing the opposite — you’re making concrete a problematisation of your identity in the minds of those who otherwise wouldn’t want to think about it.

I’m not going to dare to presume to tell you what you should do instead, mind. Heaven forbid I offer anything useful. But I do like you, smokedout, and I just felt I owed it to you to highlight what I see as a natural blind spot.

 

[GroovySunday]

I think that one of the reasons I try to avoid these threads is that it's become such an all-defining topic which has caused former friends and comrades to fall out and become bitterly opposed to each other. This isn't helped by certain prominent GCs being utterly unpleasant and unashamedly transphobic, as well as certain trans folk and trans allies demanding that anyone who has the mildest concern (or just plain ignorance) about an issue related to trans people is a TERF and therefore a fascist.

The right wingers "ah, but can you say what a woman is!" is nothing more than a political gotcha. Spymaster and others who want to make it about "what is or isn’t a woman" are playing into that. TRAs who also make it about that are not much better.

Ultimately, we can be anything we want to be genderwise, and be treated respectfully for it, rather than treated with cruelty or hatred. Likewise, expressing doubts about someone's biological sex does not make someone a fascist hater.

So often 'just having some concerns' is used as a wedge by raging bigots to deploy and spread their transphobic hate and misinformation, that's why this can happen. And the spreading of such hate can be very insidious and disingenuous.

Whereas people with a genuine lack of understanding and knowledge should probably be encouraged to be properly informed about the topic, in a respectful way, from reliable and decent sources, rather than unreliable, dodgy ones - which unfortunately are very dominant in our society (most of the media, algorithm boosted social media and internet). It's doubtful that education etc can actually work with those who find trans people repulsive tho, and who have a sort of religious belief in the misinformation and conspiracism of it.

 

[GroovySunday]

Well it’s not just toilets is it? It’s all changing facilities and any other situations where men and women are traditionally separated. The fact that the term “cis” exists, acknowledges that trans women are different.

Trans women have a right to be respected and catered for, but if cis women don’t want to share facilities with them they shouldn’t be forced to. There are two sets of people here whose rights need to be respected.

It’s astonishing that there’s even a debate about whether or not cis women should be forced to share facilities with people who have male genitalia if they don’t want to. Instead of that, cater for both.

Dumb, ignorant, basic nonsense in more ways than one. Any trans people on here who have to put up with this sort of shite have my utmost sympathy.

 

[lazythursday]

I know that if I was to search back through old posts I'd find some that veer towards the gender critical way of thinking. 5-10 years ago I was struggling what to make of this debate and definitely had some sympathy with some of the 'concerns'. I definitely had a lack of understanding and knowledge.

I think two things changed my view - firstly the thoughtful arguments put forward by a few trans people, especially smokedout . And secondly, the more gender critical stuff I read, on here and the wider internet, the more I found outright prejudice and fear mongering rather than just 'concerns'. And a total lack of reasonable policy proposals that could address concerns without completely throwing trans people under the bus. It just smelled of moral panic and if you've experienced being the victim of one of those, you recognise the signs.

But I think I could have been tempted by some of the arguments, on a purely intellectual level, if it hadn't been for some of the posts I read about what it feels like to be trans. So I think visibility of trans people is so important in changing minds of the people in the middle.

 

[PTK]

because it accurately reflects the views of the Basics Sciences evidence, the Clinical evidence and the law both as written and the case law.

unlike the clinically illiterate emissions of Fisken in the third letter which ignore what the pharmaceutical treatment for many protstate related problems are and also , as usual , for a transphobe ignoring that everyone has prostatic tissue ( usually referred to as Skene's glands in those with a vagina ...

So, can people born biologically female get prostate cancer?

 

[Orang Utan]

So, can people born biologically female get prostate cancer?

Aye, and men can get breast cancer

 

[InArduisFouette]

I know that if I was to search back through old posts I'd find some that veer towards the gender critical way of thinking. 5-10 years ago I was struggling what to make of this debate and definitely had some sympathy with some of the 'concerns'. I definitely had a lack of understanding and knowledge.

I think two things changed my view - firstly the thoughtful arguments put forward by a few trans people, especially smokedout . And secondly, the more gender critical stuff I read, on here and the wider internet, the more I found outright prejudice and fear mongering rather than just 'concerns'. And a total lack of reasonable policy proposals that could address concerns without completely throwing trans people under the bus. It just smelled of moral panic and if you've experienced being the victim of one of those, you recognise the signs.

But I think I could have been tempted by some of the arguments, on a purely intellectual level, if it hadn't been for some of the posts I read about what it feels like to be trans. So I think visibility of trans people is so important in changing minds of the people in the middle.

which is why it is so important for the so-called Gender Criticlas to marginlaise and paint trans folx as loons , cranks and predators , despite all the evidence showing time and time again that it is the so-called Gender Critical who are the predators and who have no evidence base to your wild claims and fantasising.

 

[InArduisFouette]

So, can people born biologically female get prostate cancer?

i suggest , as previously advised you return back under your bridge , as your question is clearly not placed in good faith...

and of course the answer is yes as anyone who searched for the term ' skene's gland cancer' would see

Adenosquamous Carcinoma of Skene’s Gland: A Case Report and Literature Review - PMC

Skene’s gland is homologous to the male prostate and can secrete prostate fluid. However, Skene’s gland carcinoma is extremely rare, with only 20 cases reported in the literature thus far. We report the first case of adenosquamous carcinoma of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[8ball]

The second letter seems to nail it for me.

Yep, can also say the second one is a very articulate description of my personal position (aside from a very minor quibble with a biological point which is not relevant to the argument’s conclusion).

 

[8ball]

i suggest , as previously advised you return back under your bridge , as your question is clearly not placed in good faith...

and of course the answer is yes as anyone who searched for the term ' skene's gland cancer' would see

Adenosquamous Carcinoma of Skene’s Gland: A Case Report and Literature Review - PMC

Skene’s gland is homologous to the male prostate and can secrete prostate fluid. However, Skene’s gland carcinoma is extremely rare, with only 20 cases reported in the literature thus far. We report the first case of adenosquamous carcinoma of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Well, the answer is more that females can get cancer in a homologous structure.
Given the differences between male and female breasts, though, your answer works just as well, and I don’t see what point was trying to be proven with the original question.

 

[InArduisFouette]

Well, the answer is more that females can get cancer in a homologous structure.
Given the differences between male and female breasts, though, your answer works just as well, and I don’t see what point was trying to be proven with the original question.

the whole there is a theoretical risk of a trans woman getting Ca Prostate seems to be some great gotcha for various transphobes ( perhaps they would benefit from a prostatic massage )

 

[smokedout]

This has a bunch of implications to do with how these people can be successfully engaged with. The only one I really want to bring up is to note that these people are not the ones that have any interest in enacting laws against you. They won’t argue against gender reassignment laws. They won’t even get involved — like you say, they just don’t care. But, at the same time, they also don’t want to be told what to think about their own lives. They don’t want to be told what to think at all. And this is where it gets really difficult. Because these people are quite likely to respond in a way you will find offensive to being told that a gender reassignment certificate actually makes you that gender. They haven’t thought about the implications, remember? So that means they’re probably going to default to biological determinism in their own lay categorisation of gender.

I should make clear that when I talk about people not understanding, or caring about implications, I was very much talking about the people who turn up on these threads and have taken a position - and it's often pretty obvious from the type of language they use such as 'gender ideology' that their position has been informed by gender critical propaganda.

And it's no real surprise that propaganda is effective. When someone's never really known a trans person but seen Karen White's mugshot in the press dozens of times that is likely to influence their opinions whether they are aware of it or not. This stuff works, which is why the right wing press do it. The gender critical movement also offers a very simplistic analysis which can be more attractive then the actual complexities of sex, gender and how society relates to them - subjects which have been a matter of debate, disagreement and discussion amongst feminists, queer theorists, biologists, sociologists and a whole host of other diciplines and political schools of thought for decades.

Additionally the gender critical movements speaks to other concerns including fears of male violence but also generational tension, political tensions around identity politics, conservative concerns, both conscious and unconcious transphobia, irritation about generational changes in language or culture, religious objections, anxiety about new technologies etc etc, it goes on and on.

In the face of that, and given the power gender critical or anti-gender ideology activism now has due to the right deciding to make it one of the main planks of the culture wars I don't think trans people can win this by debate, whether polite or otherwise. But that doesn't mean hope is lost. What actually forces a lot of people to take a position is knowing a trans person and seeing the implications of gender critical or transphobic rhetoric themselves.

If you don't know a trans person, were brought up against a backdrop of transphobic representations in culture and have always secretly thought it's a bit weird or find it difficult to empathise with, then the groomer, pervert, agp, pornsick, mentally ill rhetoric that is pretty much the norm from gender critical activists now doesn't have the same punch as if you think hang on, they're talking about my sister or my mate.

I doubt many neutral people would really have the stomach to force a trans girl to use the men's toilets on a night out or expect her to trudge off on her own to the men's changing rooms if she's out shopping with her mates (I don't want to use Brianna because it feels disrespectful and opportunist but that's how a lot of young trans women look). And when people know a trans person, and see the shit that trans people can receive just for going about their lives, then the gender critical narrative that trans people are the safest demographic, that society has bowed down to the fearsome trans lobby or that trans women retain male privilege, really falls apart.

Most people who know how I Iive would probably see me as gender fluid and that's okay with me. I have different groups of friends and social contacts who know me by different names which can be a bit uncomfortable but I manage. If I was younger I would have almost certainly transitioned fully but now, I kind of have and havent, have been on hormones, and off them for various reasons (the biggest one being the shitness of trans healthcare) and don't go through the ritual of performing femininity in most social situations and so get treated as male and that's just how it is. Part of me thinks I left it too late, I'm old, don't pass and it wasn't until about 2015 (the trans tipping point as it was called) that I thought hang on, maybe it's safe to come out and be more open about this. And that turned out to be a trap you fuckers.

But the point is I could've ducked this. The reason I have talked about it is not so much that I think I have top debating skillz, but more to try and emphasise to those who know me, whether on here or offline, that when you hear a Posie or Glinner ranting on about trans people they are talking about people like me - to which some people may respond well you always were a bit of a freak lol. But hopefully not all will, and it is only really by people seeing trans people as fully human, someone you know, like, love even, that this period will pass and trans liberation might be possible.

 

[redsquirrel]

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.

This is so ahistoric I'm amazed you've posted it.
Loads of socialists and anarchist have lost jobs, citizenship and more because the state deemed them a danger. At this minute there are conservatives arguing that socialism and/or 'woke' politics need to be stopped in education because their views are dangerous and a safeguarding issue. The idea that what is a safeguarding matter is some clear cut non-political fight is just not true.

Workers fighting for their workplaces/communities is fundamentally different than having the state and capital decide these things. The sort of powers who are happy giving to the state and capital have (are) far more often been used against socialists. Within the last 3 years the state has barred me from a job because of my beliefs. or more accurately membership of an anarchist group. At this moment we are seeing protestors and those engaged in civil disobedience being targeted and clamped down on.

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

So how far are you going with this? It's worth noting that at the height of its success the BNP (and other did not argue against equality but rather for a strict (separate) equality. Conservatism and liberalism both systematically discriminate, are people who support the governments Rwanda policy to also be barred? As smokedout has pointed out many conservative groups are using equality arguments to support their views.

Like with safeguarding, equality is not some clear absolute. The commitment to equality that forms one most large businesses 'values' is a nonsense, a commitment to a liberal version of equality that means inequality in many ways.

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.

I agree, I'm not arguing in favour of the current situation. The ludicrous nonsense of using the same arguments for workplaces and political groups is the twaddle that the focus on legal paths has led to.
Ultimately I want workers councils deciding these things, in the short term I'd argue for workers to build solidarity and their own power rather than relying on bosses and the state. I'm not going to cry when a BNP member gets sacked for posting something on their personal social media account, but to not see the danger that presents for us is naive (not that I think you are doing that).

 

[Dystopiary]

the whole there is a theoretical risk of a trans woman getting Ca Prostate seems to be some great gotcha for various transphobes ( perhaps they would benefit from a prostatic massage )

Wtf? No need at all.

 

[InArduisFouette]

Wtf? No need at all.

given that Genital Cranks seem to be obsessed with genitalai, the possibly of children having orgasms and their wanked -addled pronsick fantasising dominates the discourse they they think they are having ... it;s quite clear where the problem lays

 

[Orang Utan]

given that Genital Cranks seem to be obsessed with genitalai, the possibly of children having orgasms and their wanked -addled pronsick fantasising dominates the discourse they they think they are having ... it;s quite clear where the problem lays

Your posts are replicating this weird obsession with sex tbf

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

given that Genital Cranks seem to be obsessed with genitalai, the possibly of children having orgasms and their wanked -addled pronsick fantasising dominates the discourse they they think they are having ... it;s quite clear where the problem lays

 

[Spymaster]

given that Genital Cranks seem to be obsessed with genitalai, the possibly of children having orgasms and their wanked -addled pronsick fantasising dominates the discourse they they think they are having ... it;s quite clear where the problem lays

Christ almighty. I had a conversation with a couple of very sound posters today and decided to leave this thread. I upset Smokedout and Jenna last night which wasn't my intention and I regret. Apologies both.

You however, with your wanking obsession, child sex references, boasts about violent conduct, and sexual assault fantasies, are one of the dodgiest posters I've ever seen here in over 20 years.

 

[Epona]

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'm sorry, but this is absolute fucking bullshit.
This isn't a philosophical debate about hypothetical situations, with 2 sides of a "debate".
There are some massively transphobic posters here.
It's not a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other, there is some really really nasty transphobia here.

People leave when they cannot take this shit any more (including from cis women, and quite frankly if a cis woman leaves because her transphobia is deemed unacceptable then good).

This whole thread is a complete shithole that should go in the fucking bin, and some of the posters here need to think about the harm they are causing.

 

[Epona]

Christ almighty. I had a conversation with a couple of very sound posters today and decided to leave this thread. I upset Smokedout and Jenna last night which wasn't my intention and I regret. Apologies both.

Where do you think the sorts of posts you have been making on this thread are going to lead?
Watching this thread has been absolutely horrible, and you have been a part of that.
Of course people who are NB or trans are going to feel shit because of the way this thread has gone - that shouldn't come as some sort of surprise.

 

[Humberto]

Where do you think the sorts of posts you have been making on this thread are going to lead?
Watching this thread has been absolutely horrible, and you have been a part of that.
Of course people who are NB or trans are going to feel shit because of the way this thread has gone - that shouldn't come as some sort of surprise.

I agree. See to me you could see a mile off that it was going to come to bad feelings/falling out/offence. Possibly with people leaving. They keep pushing that button and persisting.

So that's where I fall out with the guy.

 

[Epona]

It's incredibly difficult standing up against this sort of thing time and time again.

What the people who criticise and deny the existence of trans people do not realise, is that although it can be just an off the cuff comment for them, a post on a thread from a hypothetical position, OK let's have an argument about it and I'll get back on with my life...
It isn't that for someone who is trans.
They have the entire fucking world against them.

I don't think that is appropriate here, remember when you get into these hypothetical "debates" that they aren't just hypothetical for everyone.
How are Urbanites who are NB or Trans supposed to feel about this, while you're all discussing how you think we shouldn't exist, or shouldn't be seen?
Here, amongst what should be friends?
When we get that Every Fucking Day from the media, from the rest of the world, is this not a place we can come together and be ourselves?

It's fucking disgraceful.

I am deeply deeply sorry that I didn't speak up sooner, but FFS it is an every day thing for some of us and it is fucking exhausting, I don't come here to argue about this, I just want to talk about cooking and cats and bird-watching.
(Being NB is not the main thing in my life, it certainly shouldn't be anyone else's concern ffs)
For some of you it is just something that occurs to you occasionally and an argument that doesn't actually mean anything to you personally, you can post here and just fuck off back to being socially acceptable in the wider world.
To others of us it is the daily reality of our existence.

Some of you ought to be fucking ashamed of yourselves for bringing that here and causing yet another wave of trans/nb/allies to leave Urban.

 

[Humberto]

How are Urbanites who are NB or Trans supposed to feel about this, while you're all discussing how you think we shouldn't exist, or shouldn't be seen?
Here, amongst what should be friends?
When we get that Every Fucking Day from the media, from the rest of the world, is this not a place we can come together and be ourselves?

Yep. You'd have thought Urban could have been that place, and that there was an opportunity to behave and let it be so.

There are a fair few sound people here though, just a bit dissapointing.

 

[comrade spurski]

This is so ahistoric I'm amazed you've posted it.
Loads of socialists and anarchist have lost jobs, citizenship and more because the state deemed them a danger. At this minute there are conservatives arguing that socialism and/or 'woke' politics need to be stopped in education because their views are dangerous and a safeguarding issue. The idea that what is a safeguarding matter is some clear cut non-political fight is just not true.

Workers fighting for their workplaces/communities is fundamentally different than having the state and capital decide these things. The sort of powers who are happy giving to the state and capital have (are) far more often been used against socialists. Within the last 3 years the state has barred me from a job because of my beliefs. or more accurately membership of an anarchist group. At this moment we are seeing protestors and those engaged in civil disobedience being targeted and clamped down on.

So how far are you going with this? It's worth noting that at the height of its success the BNP (and other did not argue against equality but rather for a strict (separate) equality. Conservatism and liberalism both systematically discriminate, are people who support the governments Rwanda policy to also be barred? As smokedout has pointed out many conservative groups are using equality arguments to support their views.

Like with safeguarding, equality is not some clear absolute. The commitment to equality that forms one most large businesses 'values' is a nonsense, a commitment to a liberal version of equality that means inequality in many ways.

I agree, I'm not arguing in favour of the current situation. The ludicrous nonsense of using the same arguments for workplaces and political groups is the twaddle that the focus on legal paths has led to.
Ultimately I want workers councils deciding these things, in the short term I'd argue for workers to build solidarity and their own power rather than relying on bosses and the state. I'm not going to cry when a BNP member gets sacked for posting something on their personal social media account, but to not see the danger that presents for us is naive (not that I think you are doing that).

This started with someone saying no one should be sacked for expressing their views in their own time away from work.

I disagreed in the case of fascists.

No fascist should be allowed to work in a school.

Right here and now we don't have workers councils to sort stuff out so IMHO fascists should be sacked if they work in schools or health (which was the original question in the post I answered).

I'm aware of the dangers of calling on the state to outlaw and ban groups which I said in my post...but that is not what I'm doing.

As for your other points about Rwanda... I have clearly said fascists...not those opposed to immigration...I don't equate anyone with fascists other than fascists.

Quite surprised saying that fascists should be not allowed to work in education or health is worth arguing with tbh

 

[smokedout]

This started with someone saying no one should be sacked for expressing their views in their own time away from work.

I disagreed in the case of fascists.

No fascist should be allowed to work in a school.

Right here and now we don't have workers councils to sort stuff out so IMHO fascists should be sacked if they work in schools or health (which was the original question in the post I answered).

I'm aware of the dangers of calling on the state to outlaw and ban groups which I said in my post...but that is not what I'm doing.

As for your other points about Rwanda... I have clearly said fascists...not those opposed to immigration...I don't equate anyone with fascists other than fascists.

Quite surprised saying that fascists should be not allowed to work in education or health is worth arguing with tbh

I feel completely distracted from this discussion after finding out the GMB Union ended up in court accused of sacking someone for being a democratic socialist and ended up arguing this shouldn't be a protected belief. I can't stop thinking about the rows, back stabbing, splits and spite that must have led to this happening. Another glorious chapter in the history of the British left no doubt

(sorry, your post probably deserves a less flippant answer than that but I had to get it off my chest)

 

[comrade spurski]

I feel completely distracted from this discussion after finding out the GMB Union ended up in court accused of sacking someone for being a democratic socialist and ended up arguing this shouldn't be a protected belief. I can't stop thinking about the rows, back stabbing, splits and spite that must have led to this happening. Another glorious chapter in the history of the British left no doubt

(sorry, your post probably deserves a less flippant answer than that but I had to get it off my chest)

no worries...sometimes I wonder why the right-wing put any effort into fighting the left ... they couldn't do any more damage than some of us do to ourselves... fucking splitters