I suppose you're right.
Please stop making this about my personal take on this. [Edited: I mean my values around trans rights. I don't think either of us are likely to change much. I'm looking for a way for divergent values to coexist in the public moral space]
I keep asking.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I wasn't trying to change your view in regard to trans rights. I was pointing out that:
1) you made up facts in regard to the Maya Forstater case. You posited an imaginary trans coworker who was subjected to imaginary harassment by Forstater. False. Erroneous. Fake news. You can't just make
**** up to make your side sound more plausible.
2) your analysis of the result of Forstater's win was superfuckenwrong. Doesn't give anyone the right to harass a coworker (the judge explicitly said this in his ruling.) Your claim that this ruling means someone could tell his female coworkers that women should speak only when spoken to, for example, is a load of crap. The ruling also doesn't even mean that Forstater's former employer is obliged to hire her back, or even that they were wrong in not renewing her contract. What the ruling establishes is that the first judge erred in declaring that Forstater's views were "not worthy of respect" and therefore not a protected philosophical belief.
3) your complaint that the ruling means that "people who believe women shouldn't have the right to vote can now work at a lipstick store" is wildly off the mark because the lipstick store (or any other work environment) doesn't actually have any power to evaluate what you believe... only how you act.
And again... the notion that having a coworker who might have contrary beliefs is some kind of hardship is ... ridiculous. The idea of working in an environment where everybody approves of each others' values is a luxury that most of us will never have, and I'm pretty much gobsmacked that you thought this was a serious criticism of the ruling. I'm just stunned that you could be that out of touch.
-k
Home
Contact
Login
Register