The Green Party has some serious questions to answer

[belboid]

Whiff of bullshit here, who actually has these figures?

ons are key but there are umpteen other surveys you could have found in seconds if you had a genuine interest.

one in three companies openly admitted they were transphobic in 2018.

Transphobia rife among UK employers as 1 in 3 won’t hire a transgender | Onrec

Online Recruitment magazine for HR Directors, Personnel Managers, Job Boards and Recruiters with information on the internet recruitment industry

www.onrec.com

I know you've no interest in finding any common ground, but for the benefit of others, the point is that major social media corporates like Reddit and Twitter are heavily in favour of Gender Identity theory and like to prove this with prominent public appointments of trans or very trans-friendly employees. It doesn't really fit with the "most oppressed evah" line and it sort of indicates that the stupid attempt to make this a left-right issue is also horseshit since these people are clearly aggressive neo-liberal capitalists.

It is true I am not interested in finding common ground with bigots and those who use old right wing arguments and phraseology to shit on other people. Thankfully everything indicates that the large majority of feminists and lesbians agree with me on that, the trans exclusionary ones are in a minority and have to rely on Sister Patels might to get their way.

 

[killer b]

I don't think anyone who lives with a paedophile

Is information on people's lovers and housemate's available to HR departments?

 

[Crispy]

Is information on people's lovers and housemate's available to HR departments?

Eh, in this case yes it's a matter of public record

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is information on people's lovers and housemate's available to HR departments?

If I may say, this seems like a very naive post. She was applying for a job in social media, and already had a history as a social media admin and political activist, with a huge history of putting personal stuff on social media.

A cursory google brings up a tonne of stuff. I don't like the idea of this kind of thing being looked at in job interviews, but in this case, surely it would have been.

 

[Wilf]

My take is that Knight's trans status has become irrelevant to the story. She acted very badly in terms of her father and has now chosen to marry and defend a nonce. That her whole story has been 'me, me, me' throughout and that she used every combination of identity politics and procedure to shut people down is the problem. Or, put the other way round, that the cloak of identity politics is available to defend people like her is the problem.

 

[killer b]

Eh, in this case yes it's a matter of public record

I know it is in this case - I meant more generally, cause that was the topic of the question trashy was responding to

 

[killer b]

If I may say, this seems like a very naive post. She was applying for a job in social media, and already had a history as a social media admin and political activist, with a huge history of putting personal stuff on social media.

A cursory google brings up a tonne of stuff. I don't like the idea of this kind of thing being looked at in job interviews, but in this case, surely it would have been.

you misunderstood the post. I've already agreed this particular case seems to be a poor hire.

 

[hitmouse]

For what it's worth, I think it's always worth trying to find common ground, and I'm happy to work with anyone who's interested in, say, stopping the epidemic of fire and rehire, helping stop the employers' attempt at de-skilling in the construction industry, or helping Sisters Uncut campaign to stop the new policing bill. I don't think much of this has any to contribute to that work, though.

 

[trashpony]

My take is that Knight's trans status has become irrelevant to the story. She acted very badly in terms of her father and has now chosen to marry and defend a nonce. That her whole story has been 'me, me, me' throughout and that she used every combination of identity politics and procedure to shut people down is the problem. Or, put the other way round, that the cloak of identity politics is available to defend people like her is the problem.

Agree 100%

 

[Buddy Bradley]

My take is that Knight's trans status has become irrelevant to the story.

More like it should be irrelevant, but the transphobes are so happy to finally have a real world example of transgender and paedophilia intersecting (even though she's not the one accused of the latter) that they're not going to let that aspect of the story die.

 

[Wilf]

Different context, but you see the damage people like Tommy Sheridan cause as they play out their own self interested dramas, forcing people in one organisation after another to line up with them or join the list of traitors (Galloway too perhaps). Ruining one organisation after another and harming the very thing they are supposed to be campaigning on. All these stories have their specifics and play out around different kinds of identities and authenticities, but must of all, I wish they'd just fuck off.

 

[Pickman's model]

If I may say, this seems like a very naive post. She was applying for a job in social media, and already had a history as a social media admin and political activist, with a huge history of putting personal stuff on social media.

A cursory google brings up a tonne of stuff. I don't like the idea of this kind of thing being looked at in job interviews, but in this case, surely it would have been.

i'm sure it wouldn't have been. an interview's what, 45 minutes? and isn't best practice to ask all the interviewees the same questions? possibly, even probably given the nature of this post, that sort of thing is used earlier in the recruitment process. but the interview itself? nah.

 

[killer b]

A cursory google brings up a tonne of stuff. I don't like the idea of this kind of thing being looked at in job interviews, but in this case, surely it would have been.

Mind you, can you imagine doing this particular background check? The case is a bête noire for a whole constellation of bigots - probably makes it easier for her to argue it's all lies

 

[co-op]

Or, put the other way round, that the cloak of identity politics is available to defend people like her is the problem.

Yeah it would be quite a good thing if the TRAs and their allies didn't throw the allegation of "transphobia" at the slightest pretext, that might make this kind of story quite a lot less likely. But before you know it, we'd have to have a discussion about what is and isn't "transphobic" and who knows where that would end eh?

 

[BillRiver]

Whiff of bullshit here, who actually has these figures?



I know you've no interest in finding any common ground, but for the benefit of others, the point is that major social media corporates like Reddit and Twitter are heavily in favour of Gender Identity theory and like to prove this with prominent public appointments of trans or very trans-friendly employees. It doesn't really fit with the "most oppressed evah" line and it sort of indicates that the stupid attempt to make this a left-right issue is also horseshit since these people are clearly aggressive neo-liberal capitalists.

A person could equally point to BAME members of the Tory cabinet, or BAME people with well paid jobs in social media corporates as evidence that racism is not real any more (and some people do try claiming that) but that would be bullshit too.

 

[belboid]

Yeah it would be quite a good thing if the TRAs and their allies didn't throw the allegation of "transphobia" at the slightest pretext, that might make this kind of story quite a lot less likely. But before you know it, we'd have to have a discussion about what is and isn't "transphobic" and who knows where that would end eh?

With you admitting you’re a bigot who throws around cheap slurs and quotes renowned uber-bigots?

 

[belboid]

btw, I’m pretty sure it would be unlawful to refuse someone a job because of their partners convictions.

 

[Looby]

Is information on people's lovers and housemate's available to HR departments?

In lots of jobs there would be a duty to disclose this even if there was never going to be any contact between the partner and children or vulnerable adults.

 

[co-op]

With you admitting you’re a bigot who throws around cheap slurs and quotes renowned uber-bigots?

When did I ever "admit I was a bigot" you prat?

Your definition of bigotry is totally self-serving, all you're doing is making the allegation of "transphobia" meaningless, it tells the listener more about the person saying it than it does about the person of whom it is said.

 

[killer b]

In lots of jobs there would be a duty to disclose this even if there was never going to be any contact between the partner and children or vulnerable adults.

Would you then be able to refuse a hire on this basis?

 

[Wilf]

btw, I’m pretty sure it would be unlawful to refuse someone a job because of their partners convictions.

I suspect the discussion we are having here is 'with what you know about this person, would you employ them'? If that's the case, it would be a no from me. If we are trying to guess how an application and references process might work, I don't know what a panel would see/know. But to be honest, for purposes of general chat on a discussion board, I'd have nothing to do with her.

 

[belboid]

When did I ever "admit I was a bigot" you prat?

Your definition of bigotry is totally self-serving, all you're doing is making the allegation of "transphobia" meaningless, it tells the listener more about the person saying it than it does about the person of whom it is said.

I’m sorry about your literacy issues. If you recall (tho you could just have read it again as I quoted it) your post finished with the words ‘and who knows where would that end?’ My post follows on directly from that.

Hope that helps

 

[belboid]

I suspect the discussion we are having here is 'with what you know about this person, would you employ them'? If that's the case, it would be a no from me. If we are trying to guess how an application and references process might work, I don't know what a panel would see/know. But to be honest, for purposes of general chat on a discussion board, I'd have nothing to do with her.

It’s both (I think) - hence the mention of hr departments at some point above

 

[co-op]

I’m sorry about your literacy issues. If you recall (tho you could just have read it again as I quoted it) your post finished with the words ‘and who knows where would that end?’ My post follows on directly from that.

Hope that helps

It did thanks, though when you have to explain your own jokes maybe hold the scorn?

 

[Looby]

Would you then be able to refuse a hire on this basis?

I don’t know and I think it would depend on the job but there was a case of a teacher who was in a relationship with a convicted sex offender who didn’t disclose it to the governors and was sacked. It went to the Supreme Court in the end who upheld the sacking and the ET supporting the dismissal.
It placed children at an indirect risk. She could have been groomed or coerced into giving this man direct or indirect access to children. Other professions would be similar.
There would at least need to be a very robust safety plan in place I’d imagine.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Mind you, can you imagine doing this particular background check? The case is a bête noire for a whole constellation of bigots - probably makes it easier for her to argue it's all lies

Yes, that's a fair point. However, it also kind of backs up some of what coop has been saying, that for whatever reason there appears to have been something of a reluctance to call her out on what are obvious problems. Changing her dad's name in the records in order to hire him after his arrest for such a despicable crime, and doing so in pursuit of a political objective, ought to be a hard thing to come back from. As far as I know that is public record. She can't argue that it's lie. Should she be ostracised for life for it? Maybe not, but she should have to do some work to retrieve her reputation after such an egregious betrayal of trust when seeking a position of responsibility. Instead, she seems to have been able to walk from one position of responsibility to another. And I'm afraid her subsequent actions, including marrying a paedophile, strongly suggest to me that she is a very damaged person who does not understand certain basic principles to do with trust, consent and responsibility. Not surprising given her fucked-up family background, but not someone who should be anywhere near anything concerning safeguarding issues. She should also probably stop her charity work for children. She needs to find something else to do with her life. She appears not to have the insight to see that. Harsh perhaps, but there it is. Her wishes shouldn't always come first.

 

[hitmouse]

Yeah it would be quite a good thing if the TRAs and their allies didn't throw the allegation of "transphobia" at the slightest pretext, that might make this kind of story quite a lot less likely. But before you know it, we'd have to have a discussion about what is and isn't "transphobic" and who knows where that would end eh?

I'm getting the impression that you have some quite strongly held ideas about where that would end up. Do you wish to share them?

I suspect the discussion we are having here is 'with what you know about this person, would you employ them'? If that's the case, it would be a no from me. If we are trying to guess how an application and references process might work, I don't know what a panel would see/know. But to be honest, for purposes of general chat on a discussion board, I'd have nothing to do with her.

Yeah, apart from anything else we've established that she's a Lib Dem, so a pretty clear-cut wrong 'un on that basis alone.

 

[Wilf]

Yeah, apart from anything else we've established that she's a Lib Dem, so a pretty clear-cut wrong 'un on that basis alone.

 

[co-op]

I'm getting the impression that you have some quite strongly held ideas about where that would end up. Do you wish to share them?

Yep, "transphobia" means hating transpeople and wanting to limit their social poltical and legal rights,

Transphobia doesn't mean "anyone who thinks gender identity theory is wrong".

 

[belboid]

Yep, "transphobia" means hating transpeople and wanting to limit their social poltical and legal rights,

Cool, so you agree that Women’s Place (who want to roll back all aspects of the gra and introduce harsher toilet laws, for example) are transphobes. That’s a start.