62
Civil servants cannot wear ‘fetish gear’ to work, minister confirms
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
62 points (91.9% liked)
United Kingdom
4092 readers
80 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't have a telegraph account - someone summarise?
Here's an archive of the page.
She's trans and her attire led to a minister stating that kind of "fetish gear" cannot be worn at work. Others working with her say it's highly inappropriate and unprofessional. That's the gist of it.
Is that relevant?
Apparently, as the Telegraph decided to give this nothingburger of a paragraph its own heading
I was asking about OP's comment, not the Telegraph's article. Of course the Telegraph will include irrelevant detail in order to sensationalise (in their view) the story. Others repeating that irrelevant detail is questionable though.
Well, the article itself dedicates a section to how she's been targeted for "gender ideology", which is dog whistle for "trans". Calling non-cis gender expression a "fetish" is another dog whistle. Those two points in combination make her trans-ness relevant, even if the author isn't going so far as to explicitly call out that this anti-trans behavior.
Being trans does not give extra dress-code rights, and nor should it. None of the other women are allowed to dress that way, so why should she?
Now, if she wants to challenge the dress code for more esoteric modes to be allowed, that should be taken under consideration by whoever is in charge of that, but in the meantime, she should at least try to conform. Then if the decision was to go against her, she'd have the requisite conforming clothing already.
(Tangentially, there's an argument that gender non-conforming people might want to define other professional dress codes that don't strictly fit with male and female norms, but that's doesn't seem to be what's happening here.)
I understand that it's difficult for trans folk who deal with transphobics everywhere they turn and thus every discrimination could be transphobia, but this one seems pretty easy to test.
And I have to wonder how she'd react if she won the dress code change and other people, cis people, started dressing more like her.
Again, I wasn't talking about the article.
I'll go one better. Here is the archive.