Candles in the garden
Another “no she’s the evil person” open letter:
Dancers who accused a leading choreographer of transphobia have claimed she has jeopardised their safety by publicising her resignation.
She was supposed to go quietly.
Earlier this week, the choreographer said she could not “endure this humiliation any longer” and spoke to the media about her decision to resign.
However, in an open letter seen by the BBC, the dancers claim that, by going public, Kay has caused “potential detriment to our careers”.
Why would that be? Oh, because their bullying was shameful? But then the detriment is their doing, not hers. If your behavior can’t stand publicity then that could indicate the behavior is bad behavior. Maybe the dancers should be thinking hard about why the exposure of their bullying could be detrimental to their careers.
In the letter, the dancers say they want to “set the record straight and to ensure that any dancers under the supervision of Rosie Kay do not undergo the same marginalisation that we have suffered”.
There it is again. They want to be free to bully her and they want her to shut up and take it. They haven’t suffered any “marginalisation.”
Kay said the event on 28 August was supposed to be a bonding dinner for a dance company about to perform Romeo and Juliet. She explained she had wanted to invite dancers round ahead of the show’s opening, after the long months of the pandemic had lowered spirits.
“We’d had no social time because of Covid,” she told the BBC. “I cooked, put candles in the garden, and made a lot of effort as I wanted them to enjoy themselves.”
The dancers see it differently. They told the BBC that she was their boss, in a position of authority, which they felt made it an “unequal situation” from the start. “It was a work environment… she abused her position of power,” one company member said.
By not letting them tell her what to think.
The letter, signed by six members of the company, added: “Rosie spoke about ‘the cake of rights’ and stated women have fought for their slice of rights and now men pretending to be women want a portion of that slice. This is a deeply offensive analogy and due to the fact that two trans non-binary people had a seat at the table, it felt very pointed.”
But however offensive it is, it’s true. Trans “activism” has become all about taking more and more rights away from women. You could change “pretending to be” to “identifying as” to be more tactful, but the taking of rights is all too real. What the board of Rosie Kay’s company did to her is an all too clear example of that circular diminution: if you say out loud that trans dogma is eroding women’s rights then you will be punished, which proves your point.
“and due to the fact that two trans non-binary people had a seat at the table, it felt very pointed.”
Non-binary is a meaningless, stupid term. Whatever those nitwits think they mean by “non-binary” it has nothing to do with what Kay was talking about.
I also have to say that while I understand the concept of employers abusing their positions of power, I think there’s a worrying trend of people becoming unable to respond to even slightly challenging situations as adults. Employers/teachers/older people/etc., aren’t God-Emperors. Especially in this case.
Putting aside the underlying issue, I have to agree with the dancers that it is shitty behavior to invite a bunch of your work subordinates to a “social” function (and work-related social functions always have that element of “mandatory fun” coerciveness) and proceed to lecture them on non-work-related political/social issues.
Screechy Monkey,
Indeed. The head of a dance troupe should never associate with subordinates and should never open her mouth about anything non-work related.
There should be such things as “officer’s mess halls” for anyone in management and there should be no mixing with the lower-orders. It might seem exclusionary but it avoids the dangers of employees hearing something they disagree with and instantly bursting into flames.
That is not remotely what I said, and it’s incredibly dishonest of you to pretend to believe otherwise.
Let’s agree to disagree. You think it was shitty for the head of a dance troupe to host a dinner for them and engage in conversation with them at the event. I think that such behaviour is entirely normal and something that adults should learn how to navigate. Which is something that I alluded to in my first comment.
I never seriously thought you worried that those dancers would burst into flames.
I objected to “lectur[ing] them on non-work-related political/social issues,” not “engag[ing] in conversation.” If you actually can’t see the difference, then perhaps you’re not dishonest, just incredibly stupid.
@Screechy – I can see what you mean, but I would guess that in creative employment like theatre, dance and the like there is less of the hierarchical sense as compared to the corporate world. Also, she didn’t “lecture” – she got into a discussion. Given the hyperbolic reaction of TRAs to the mildest criticism – “literal violence”, “elimination”, “trans genocide” – I would not accept their version of the seriousness of the events – and they say “microagressions” and don’t like her (quite reasonable) words about sharing rights.
My first response was, you were at a work do and your boss said something you didn’t like. Well that’s how it rolls. Unless it’s outright shouting abuse and swearing, mutter about it with your colleagues in private. Don’t make a drama about it and run off to trustees/HR or whoever. It could go ways you don’t like and get you a reputation as a hyper-sensitive trouble maker.
I remember at one work meeting that was mandatory. We were basically told we could not think or say, even on our own time, that the military interventions in other countries were for ignoble reasons, unnecessary, or wrong. I disagreed 100%. If college instructors cannot engage in questioning received wisdom, they are sacrificing their academic freedom and are at risk of becoming useless. I did not melt down. I did not report this to the supervisors (who were in the room anyway and and approved of his words). I did not start a dogpile on Twitter. I did not try to get him fired. I merely held my own opinions as being equally valid to his and continued doing my job correctly.
in this situation, I think that would have been the more appropriate reaction of the troupe. I don’t think Kay was out of line. I have one foot in theatre, as I think everyone here knows, and being involved in theatre I can tell you it is an unpleasant, even ugly at times, place for a GC feminist. Women are being pushed aside as we are ordered to cast any trans person who tries out, and make sure it’s in their chosen gender so they are validated. I have written plays questioning trans dogma; I cannot even get them read because of the stifling atmosphere. Insults flow thick and fast from one direction; the rest of us are expected to remain quiet or find ourselves covered with shit from the shit storm.
I imagine dance is the same way. I for one do not want male bodies in female changing rooms. That way lies madness.
So I think I have to disagree with Screechy. As someone in a position of (mild) authority over the others, I feel it is likely she needed to say something. It’s a shame the people who need to hear never listen.
It would be interesting to see how the conversation began, ebbed, and flowed. It doesn’t matter whether the dance director was advocating trans rights in a room with subordinates known to be GCs, or advocating women’s rights in a room with subordinates known to be TRAs. Was it always clear that “reasonable people disagree on this and it’s not work-related?” If not, it’s coercive and a bit threatening.
I saw somewhere that one of the dancers said that the director was telling them that “trans people are all predators who don’t belong in women’s restrooms because they’ll attack.” My spidey senses go all tingly here, sensing someone Making Crap Up. If their sense of being unsafe is on the same level as their recollection, I don’t place much weight on it.
KBPlayer,
I agree that it’s not all that unusual — there are plenty of corporate bosses who will happily lecture their employees on the dire threats of government regulation, tax increases, or critical race theory or whatever is the right-wing bugaboo of the day. Most of the time it’s not going to rise to the level of something that would or could or should be brought to any governing board (at least not with any expectation of success). I just said it’s shitty behavior. Bosses engage in lots of shitty behavior that employees are probably best off just rolling their eyes at later over a pint with their like-minded colleagues.
And if the facts are different than what we’ve been told to date, well, sure, that could affect my opinion and everyone else’s. Again, I’m not calling for anyone’s dismissal or anything, just saying “that sounds shitty.”
@Sastra
“M…C…U…” “spidey senses”
I love it!
I agree that bosses lecturing a captive audience of subordinates on political issues is tedious at best, but we don’t really know that’s what Rosie Kay did. We have two rival accounts and don’t know which is more accurate, but it could be that the subject came up and RK failed to take evasive measures. But then of course I have a very strong bias in favor of her as opposed to the subordinates.
This sounds a lot like the Willoughby/Stock radio debate, wherein W was pleasant and interested in further discussion when on air or around witnesses, but accused Stock of trans genocide once he was communicating with (and for) his own audience
Me too. I wouldn’t trust their account. At all.
Failure to take “evasive measures” might simply mean that she spoke honestly about her own beliefs. Despite being deemed a protected belief, open statements of the reality of sex, and the definition of “woman: adult human female,” are still considered “transphobic hate speach.”
Interesting that honest disagreement makes them feel “unsafe”, whereas cowardly, expedient obedience would not. The fearful, intimidated one who makes the right sounds in public is hiding any reservations they have, concealing their true feelings. In the normal course of events, would that not make them less trustworthy and a more likly object of suspicion and fear than the person who is forthright in their disagreement?
A lot of this will come down to the different participants in that conversation having different perceptions of it. The topic could easily have come up naturally and reasonably, which was perceived to be a captive lecture by those that disagreed with the content. Or perhaps Kay is one of those that think their opinions are fact, opined in a dictating manner. So, Screechy is either right or wrong, depending on how it actually played out. Yes, thank you, my thoughts are extra deep today.
The facts as we know them however are that dance studio kicked its own founder out for knowing that male bodies are not women’s bodies.
Interesting discussion and I’ve nothing of direct substance to add. I think everyone has made valid points that can be evaluated only with more (accurate) information. Which we don’t have and probably will not get.
Rosie is not alone in her situation by any stretch. I find myself skirting this situation a lot at work. We have a very flat and free structure at work. Only the founders word is really law, and even then people happily argue with him in public. Although I’m in a senior role in the organisation, younger staff will happily challenge my views and decisions, and, frankly, I wouldn’t have it any other way. It gets much trickier in non-work conversations in work related settings though. I have strong political and social views (surprise!), but I don’t express them until someone else (nearly always junior to me) states their position, which in the ever constant spirit of youth is usually done with a deep sense of assurance as to the rightness and invisibility of the view. The irony that I was once young is not lost on me. On almost any topic, politics, vaccination, economics, social policy, I’ll express my view or ask questions designed to challenge the views of others in the conversation. Trans rights? It’s a mine field.
There is a ground swell in the company to sign up to a charter that is nominally about inclusion and diversity for all. In reality it is waffle except for the trans bits, which in my view cut squarely across women’s sex based rights and would create a stifling environment for anyone inclined to say so. I also see this as part of a larger cultural battle. I’ve been blocking signing the charter so far. I’ve maintained that the issues are far more complex and wide reaching than proponents are making out and that I’m happy to have a structured discussion around this. So far no one has taken me up on the offer. I’ve also said that words, while important, are cheap. If we want to be a diverse and inclusive organisation we don’t need to sign a charter, we need to take concrete steps to ensure that we employ and promote able women, people of different cultures, and other minorities. I’ve maintained that given our internal culture is markedly different from most corporates, we should have our own D&I policy, not sign up to an anodyne policy like the one proposed. The only advantage to signing up to that one is that we are ‘seen’ in the industry as being a player.
I believe I’m generally well liked and respected in the organisation. I also suspect that should a complaint of transphobia ever be made against me, it wouldn’t necessarily go well for me, for the simple reason that almost no one wants to defend a person so charged, lest the same accusation be made against them. The unfortunate thing about this is that the idea of having a D&I is to create a better environment and I think it’s actually harmed us by creating the beginnings of a wall we all refuse to talk about.
Regarding those different accounts–I, too, am biased.
Rosie’s account:
These descriptions of the language she used are strongly contested by Kay. “I said, and it is correct to say, that women are losing rights to males who identify as women. These include rights to single sex spaces. This is not an analogy, it is a statement of fact, and I do not apologise for it.”
…
“This was a dinner in my own home, at which I was attacked by six individuals. The hostility was directed at me, and has lasted for nearly four months. I make no apology for standing up against this treatment, using the ‘power’ that I have earned through a 20 year career.
Vs
Ipse dixit, QED.
Re #16, I confess to being biased, no surprise, but I notice this bit also:
Kay asked the people who identify as non-binary why they do so? Seems like a reasonable question. And they were willing to answer, to a point. But I gather she wanted to know what their sex was, and one way to ascertain sex in an area that is rife with mumbo-jumbo is to ask about genitals. I can very easily imagine the conversation heading in that direction. To me, that’s asking a question that they don’t want to answer, which they are welcome to state, rather than a hateful or phobic line of conversation.
And of course it has nothing whatsoever to do with “who somebody is”. I find this terminology irksome. Dancer X is Dancer X regardless of whether Dancer X is male or female, is named Fred or Alice, is gay or straight. Information about genitalia provides some evidence of characteristics of Dancer X, not who Dancer X is. It shapes a description of Dancer X, and perhaps indicates whether Dancer X’s self-description is accurate, but it doesn’t change who Dancer X is.
Also, “justify their existence”? No. I doubt they were being asked to “justify their existence”. They are skilled dancers, their existence is justified. They were being asked to justify claims they make about themselves, or explain the accuracy of terminology they use to describe themselves. That is in no way their “existence”.
There is scope for a play here – one side showing what they think is hospitality, friendly curiosity, and a readiness for discussion, the other a total onslaught on their beliefs and well-being and reacting like devout Christians to someone spitting on the cross.
Re the non-binary thing – Helen Macdonald, the author of H is for Hawk, was on Desert Island Discs on Friday. I found her an engaging and interesting guest, then we were told she had “come out” as non binary, which as far as I could fathom means that she has a deep voice, is fascinated by birds of prey and had loved collecting things as a child. I presumed it also meant she was not attracted to sparkly dresses and flirting. “Non binary” seemed a large claim for personality and interests.
I find it very hard to believe that a group of dancers don’t know who has which genitals. Last I checked leotards don’t leave much to the imagination.
Ballet scene from the movie Top Secret