Critical of “gender identity”
The resistance is spreading. There’s a group called Evidence-Based Social Work Alliance.
As a coalition of qualified practitioners, academics and social work students, we came together in response to our individual concerns regarding the uncritical use of gender identity theory in social work and other professions. As a group we believe social workers have a responsibility in law, underpinned by professional ethics and values, to promote and uphold the safeguarding of children. Children and young people with gender dysphoria are presenting to the profession and we are being silenced in our attempts to understand and discuss the evidence-base approaches to exploring this phenomenon.
Social Work England to discontinue case against social worker for “offensive” Facebook posts about Mermaids and “gender identity” policies.
A registered social worker who is appealing against a warning issued by Social Work England (SWE) in 2021 has been informed that it does not intend to defend its position at a review hearing which starts on Monday 17 October. The official warning followed a complaint by a single person that posts by the social worker on her private Facebook page were ‘offensive’ and ‘disgusting’ because they criticised the concept of gender identity. SWE’s decision followed receipt of submissions on the case.
It seems like only yesterday that adults knew perfectly well that their fantasies were personal to them and in no way suitable or permissible to impose on other people.
The posts which were deemed “offensive” and “disgusting” comprised articles, blogs and cartoons critical of or satirical about “gender identity”. Raising concerns about charity Mermaids was found to be illegitimate and bigoted. The charity is now at the centre of a growing scandal, including a trustee with links to paedophile groups on its board and serious safeguarding breaches in its contact with children. Many of the posts were from mainstream publications. Others were from legitimate campaign groups such as Fair Play for Women. None of the posts used abusive or derogatory language nor singled out any individual for targeted harassment. There was no evidence that the social worker had ever behaved in a discriminatory way in her previously unblemished social work career. None of the posts were personally offensive towards anyone All were a reflection of the social worker’s protected “gender critical” beliefs.
Although SWE now wants to withdraw from the review, it has not acknowledged the case made in the submissions that the views expressed are entirely legitimate and necessary to be publicly expressed by a registered social worker.
Maggie Mellon said “EBSWA believes that the case should be heard in full. It is essential that SWE is required to either defend or to withdraw its entire case against our colleague. SWE’s conduct has sent out a chilling message to the entire profession that they may not raise concerns about any aspect of belief in ‘gender identity’ without facing accusations that their fitness to practice is impaired. SWE should make it clear that it will not sanction social workers for merely expressing criticism or concern about claims made about “gender identity” and their impact on social work practice.”
“Gender identity” is the opposite of social. That’s the whole problem in a nutshell. It’s individual. It’s a fantasy in the head; it can’t be social. Fictions can be social, as for instance with movies and plays, novels and stories, but personal fantasies – fantasies about the self – can’t. It doesn’t work, and people should stop trying to make it work, at the expense of everyone who is aware that it doesn’t work.
SWE bowed to the complaint of ONE person. SWE must have agreed that the posts were indeed ‘offensive’ and ‘disgusting.’ They should be made to explain exactly what was offensive and disgusting, apart from the complainant’s disagreement with it. That’s a pretty low bar for complaint against a member of a professional society. It should have resulted in a request to kindly fuck off rather than the distribution of torches and pitchforks to go roust the “offending” social worker.
I’m wondering if the “she” who complained is really more of a “he” in reality.
I don’t think the sex (or gender) of the person who complained to the SWE is stated anywhere. However, there are plenty of women willing to crucify other women who dare to say that sex is real and that sex matters.
If SWE isn’t willing to defend its position at a review hearing on the propriety of the professional “warning,” then it should be required to remove the “warning” from the social worker’s record, with an apology, and dismiss the entire proceeding. The accused social worker should not be put to the expense and time of appearing to protect herself on review, when the agency is unwilling to defend its wholly indefensible claim. Refusing to defend the review, while allowing the review to proceed, leaves the social worker subject to the vicissitudes of the personality quirks and politics of the reviewers. That risk is intolerable.
The weaselly writing is weaselly: “Raising concerns about charity Mermaids was found to be illegitimate and bigoted.”. WHO “found” it “illegitimate and bigoted” to raise concerns about Mermaids? Some SWE functionary who illegitimately is bigoted against the reality of sex, no doubt.
There may be a grain of good news in SWE’s refusal to defend, but only a grain. SWE should admit it was wrong, remove the warning, and dismiss the entire proceeding. The social worker deserves full vindication, and restoration of her unblemished record.
That’s for sure. A long string of them went after me when I jumped off the train – Stephanie Zvan, Heina Dadabhoy, Greta Christina, Rebecca Watson, Melody Hensley, Dana Hunter, etc. Fun times.
This is one of the many things about this nonsense that drive me crazy. If gender is a social construct, then a person cannot have one.
and
I don’t think I agree with this. The fantasies may exist entirely in the head of each individual, and may be a belief about the individual, but it is also a belief about themselves in relation to the prevailing culture. Something like ‘prevailing culture places expectations on this body type, but I am a rare exception to them!’ Never mind that there are also contradictory beliefs bundled with that – ‘there are a great many of us as yet undiscovered/uncounted’ and ‘we have always existed throughout history’ and ‘the prevailing culture which holds these expectations is a relatively recent anomaly in history’ off the top of my head. Religions have never been perturbed by their internal contradictions.
And then there is the fact that the people involved network with and support each other. There is the emotional support of people bonding over similar experiences and welcoming, criticism-free areas for discussion and socialising; more importantly, there is the intellectual support: you are not deluded, we believe the same thing as you, our beliefs are real and evidence based.
In short it is a religion, and religions strike me as an intensely social phenomenon. This one may be more focused than others on the specialness of the individual than others, but it is not completely alone in that narcissism. Many denominations of Christianity stress that each person has a personal relationship with Jesus and a unique place in the grand plan, Buddhism is all about contemplation and introspection leading to personal growth and learning, and Taosim, Confucianism and Shinto incorporate veneration of one’s own ancestors. Religions that focus on the self in relation to the rest of the world exist, and genderism is the newest.
___
YNNB, the ‘her’ was the social worker complained about by someone else: “…posts by the social worker on her private Facebook page were ‘offensive’ and ‘disgusting’ because…”
Holms, I’m trying really hard, but I can’t seem to see where you contradict what I said.
I may have misinterpreted your comment; in which case, I’m not sure what you meant.
Here’s my take, for what it’s worth. If gender identity is a social construct, then any given individual is dependent upon everyone else to construct that identity. Without someone else to “tell you what you are,” there’s no society giving you the necessary feedback. Otherwise it’s like looking for a reflection when there is no mirror present. Gender identitarianism posits that the individual is allowed, indeed expected, to dictate that identity, obviating the “social” aspect. It would be like an anorexic demanding the mirror to reflect only the image of themselves they have in their head, not the simple reality it normally would.
I don’t know if that’s what Nullius was positing or not, but that’s my interpretation.