Bloody raht brother !I worked for a trade union back in the 80's going into the 90's. I was a full time lay official which means I was elected and my employer, in this instance a local authority, recognised me as the leading trade union official for a large section of it's workforce and I was the point of contact for all negotiations, disciplinary hearings, grievances and anything else that the employer wanted to discuss with it's workforce etc.
In the early years of doing this work, it was becoming commonplace for large employers to implement an equal opportunity policy and this was negotiated with us and after an agreement was reached, the new policy was duly implemented.
A memorable part of the negotiations featured around the inclusion of gay men and women in the policy. The trade union side were of the view that it was important to ensure that they were not discriminated against and should be included specifically in the policy like the other groups that had already been agreed. The employers side said they would discuss it at a senior level and let us know their response.
A few days later, we re-convened and the employers side said they were happy to include gay men and women in the new policy and they also suggested that paedophiles should also be included.
We were astounded. From our side of the table, it was not something that we would have even considered suggesting. Negotiators on both sides of the table including myself had families with young children.
Prior to these negotiations, I had researched equal opportunity policies because back in those days, they were a fairly new thing. I had not come across one single document anywhere that suggested that paedophiles should be included in any agreement.
We were unanimous on our side of the table in saying to the employer that paedophiles should not be regarded as having some kind of similarity to gay men and women and paedophiles should certainly not be included in the agreement in any shape or form.
Just for the record, this was a Conservative led authority before anybody suggests those silly Labour Councils will typically try to do this.
You wouldn't have these names by any chance ?Some Canadian universities allow students to self define their gender. A couple of enterprising fellows self defined as female so they could access the womens' showers in their halls of residence. They were making hidden camera porn and selling it on a web site. The boys ended up in prison and on the sex offenders' register. Their victims will go through their entire lives knowing that anybody who Googles their names can see them naked.
Common Purpose?Who else thinks this is no mere accident? Just a five years ago transgender people weren't even on the radar, a tiny minority identified as transgender and society went about its business with no problems. How is it The Powers That Be are suddenly forcing this on everyone and every public institution? Just who is behind the lobbying?
Curious, why ironic.
The biological reasons being that despite the window dressing they're both men.Curious, why ironic.
I agree with her.
I also have two transgender (now) female friends and for biological reasons they would hand any normal (?)women their ersse in a physical competition.
I doubt either of them agree with what is happening.
I too think it's important to allow people to identify as whatever they believe, though I remain to be convinced of the wider benefits of forcing others to change their own beliefs in order to accommodate this.I doubt it is important to them, it certainly isn't to me or my friends.
Incidentally this is not new. Wilfred Thesiger mentions it in 'A Life of my Choice'.