Social Work England has defended its impartiality and commitment to human rights, and called for further discussion about social workers’ use of social media, after warning a practitioner over posts it concluded were discriminatory towards transgender people.
The case, concerning a social worker who shared dozens of posts on Facebook that were found to constitute “an extended pattern of discriminatory behaviour”, has sparked fierce online debate over the past week.
Questions have been raised about the regulator’s decision-making and sanction, which the social worker accepted, whether holding so-called ‘gender-critical’ views has any bearing on the ability of people to practise as social workers, and the case’s broader free-speech implications.
The regulator said in a response that the reaction “shows that a much broader conversation is needed on how best to support social workers to engage respectfully and professionally online when areas of ethical tension arise”.
Social Work England’s warning to the social worker over future behaviour, which stays in force for 12 months, came after officers decided there were no grounds to proceed to a formal fitness-to-practise hearing. It follows a recent High Court victory for a woman who lost her job after tweeting that transgender women could not change their biological sex, with a judge-led panel concluding that ‘gender-critical’ beliefs are protected under the Equality Act.
The report into Social Work England’s investigation, and its outcome, was taken down by the regulator, which a spokesperson said was “while we consider an issue of factual accuracy raised with us”. The report has since been republished online.
‘Derogatory and potentially discriminatory’
Social workers have previously been sanctioned as a result of views posted online.
In 2019, a social worker was given a conditions of practice order, with one of the factors considered relating to posts on Facebook deemed racially insensitive. In 2017, meanwhile, a social work student was expelled from a university course for calling homosexuality a sin – a decision that was subsequently endorsed by a judicial review, though this was overturned on appeal.
In this latest case, officers acting in response to a complaint from a member of the public reviewed “more than 70” screenshotted posts from the social worker’s Facebook account. These included them backing a petition against a charity supporting gender-diverse young people delivering training to public-sector organisations, and sharing comments appearing to conflate being transgender with paedophilia.
‘Case examiners’ – who review the evidence from investigations – said the social worker’s posts “could be perceived to be derogatory and potentially discriminatory” to members of the transgender community.
“They further consider that others who may not be from that community would also find these views offensive,” Social Work England’s report into the complaint, made by a member of the public in June 2020, said.
The social worker claimed she “did not fully read or analyse their content before posting” – something case examiners said “concerned” them – and since being investigated has undertaken training “to broaden their understanding of working with gender diverse and trans people”.
The social worker stated in submissions that she supported a feminist perspective, and said: “On reflection I feel that I may have been swayed by the mistaken view of other prominent feminists who felt that promoting transgender rights would impede on women’s rights. This was a gap in my knowledge base and this training has shown me how to work in a much more inclusive way.”
The social worker’s manager said they had confidence the social worker had never practised in a discriminatory way, and that she was competent and able to practise.
‘No public interest’ in full hearing
Case examiners considered whether the social worker had breached professional standards requiring social workers to:
- Use technology, social media or other forms of electronic communication unlawfully, unethically, or in a way that brings the profession into disrepute.
- Behave in a way that would bring into question my suitability to work as a social worker while at work, or outside of work.
“There is a realistic prospect of adjudicators establishing the statutory ground of misconduct,” Social Work England’s report said, on the basis of the social worker’s posts damaging the profession’s public reputation.
But case examiners concluded the social worker’s actions were not so serious that a full hearing would serve the public interest.
“[Case examiners] have also taken account of the social worker’s submissions about learning from their mistakes and moving forward,” the report said. “They are satisfied the social worker can continue to practise safely without restriction, therefore a swift resolution to the case is preferable.”
The social worker deleted the Facebook posts and accepted a warning, which the examiners felt was appropriate after considering whether or not her fitness to practise would continue to be impaired.
The published warning will remain for one year, with the regulator stating that “any similar conduct or matters brought to the attention of the regulator are likely to result in a more serious outcome”.
‘Conduct must not harm public or undermine confidence’
In its statement this week, Social Work England said “We are aware of the debate that’s taken place on Twitter over recent days in relation to professional practice and individual social workers’ positions on gender identity.
“We want to be clear that as an independent public body we are committed both to upholding human rights and to maintaining impartiality – as must social workers on our register who support some of the most vulnerable people in society.”
The statement added: “We are clear in our professional standards guidance that conduct on social media should in no way harm the public or compromise the support social workers provide to people. This includes undermining public confidence in the profession.”
Announcing a new look into guidance around social media and social work the statement concluded: “We will be reaching out shortly to encourage participation from across the sector and include people with lived experience to help take this work forward.”
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole 
Hampshire County Council 
Lincolnshire County Council 
Norfolk County Council 
Northamptonshire Children’s Trust 
South Gloucestershire Council 
Wiltshire Council 
Wokingham Borough Council 
Children and young people with SEND are ‘valued and prioritised’ in Wiltshire, find inspectors 
How specialist refugee teams benefit young people and social workers 
Podcast: returning to social work after becoming a first-time parent 
Podcast: would you work for an inadequate-rated service? 
Family help: one local authority’s experience of the model 
‘We are all one big family’: how one council has built a culture of support 
Workforce Insights – showcasing a selection of the sector’s top recruiters 
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
So now beliefs expressed publicly but not incorporated into practice are subject to sanctions by a ‘regulator’ which fails onall counts when it comes to clarity and competence. If I was the berated social worker I would remind SWE that whatever their confused mindset decrees, they are not above the law of our country. This sanction amounts to defamation of the social worker as a consequence of SWE acting outside the Equality Act. Personally, I would seek a legal redress if I found myself in the same situation. SWE should be mindful to remind itself that Stonewall does not define the law.
Are we to assume that silence from BASW on this is because it supports denying feminists expressing gender critical thought?
Wellcome to Gilead. SWE finds no evidence of transphobic practice by the social worker whose manager tells them she has never practiced in a discriminatory manner. Irrespective of this, the social worker must be sanctioned “as an example to other members of the profession” so that we understand we cannot hold beliefs not approved of by SWE. Even if they are ones protected by the Equality Act. And she must pay SWE a registration fee for the privilege of being denigrated.
How can we have an open debate when SWE has already decided what constitutes “ethical tension”?
How does SWE know that public confidence in social work is undermined by online comments that are gender critical? When did an assumption based on a case examiners personal beliefs become the standard to determine public opinion and a basis for sanctioning a social worker for a different belief? Does my never having had confidence in SWE being a competent regulator ipso facto translate as all social worker regarding SWE as shambolic incompetents? Does one equate to the other simply because I beleive it? That is the absurd basis for the judgement made by the case examiner in this report. If SWE are setting themselves to be the thought police of social workers when no evidence is found of us undermining public confidence or practicing unethically, it falls on Community Care to hold them to account on how they justify sanctioning social workers by side stepping Law on the whim of a case worker?
As someone who works alongside social workers who also has a close family member who is transgender. Yes my confidence in social workers is deeply undermined by this. I cannot get my head around the need for so many women (yes I’m a woman who strongly upholds women’s rights) feeling the need to stand on self righteous soap boxes spouting me me me.
Unless you have walked a mile in their shoes you have ZERO understanding of what it’s like to live with gender dysphoria. My relative lived with it for over fifty years until finding the strength to be their true self.
If I came across this SW I would throw them out of my house in a flash.
I am a non-social worker partner of a lesbian social worker. That makes me a member of the public. I am horrified that a supposed profession that fought hard to be regulated is now overseen by bullies who see nothing troubling about telling social workers what to think. I would not throw this social worker out of my house because try as it has SWE could not find any evidence that she was transphobic at work. Indeed her manager said she has never discriminated in her work. The only way we could possibly establish what most of the public think about the treatment of this social worker is if SWE have the integrity to open the debate to the public. They are fond of surveys so why not conduct one through YouGov and ask the public if they support sanctioning a social worker not for what she did but for having beliefs not approved of by SWE.
Ofcourse trans and hetronormative patriarchy will see women speaking up for themselves as me me me narcissism.
1. I’m female????
2. I’m appalled by the anti trans movement.
3. Where are all the men complaining about women transitioning to men?
4. It’s embarrassing mass hysteria from women lacking compassion and understanding for those suffering gender dysphoria and it’s discrimination. It’s disgusting to see so many SW partaking in such awful discrimination.
5. What’s the actual likelihood of all these scary trans individuals having the time and energy to go through the public humiliation and pile on haters so that they could go in a female bathroom??? If they wanted to attack women there’s plenty of easier ways to go about it.
6. I would not want this SW or the rest of you ranting in her defense on here in my house and would make you leave.
I am a social worker and I am also a member of the public. Although not close family members there are a number of males within my close circle who identify/ied as trans.
The first has since passed away. Came out around age 60, wife was supportive. Adult daughters said that preferred him as a woman because he was abusive as a man, put them all through hell. Only problem was the need to dress like a drag queen wherever they went, fondled his breasts a lot in restaurants. Stonewall UK is seeking to abolish the need for such males to have permission from their wives before legally changing their details to that of a woman, effectively forcing their wives to legally become one half of a lesbian couple.
Debbie Hayton is a gender critical trans woman. Debbie describes having AGP, Autogynephilia, sexual arousal at the idea of being female. For many men it might begin as transvestism but the ‘hit’ becomes ever more elusive and require increasing amounts of stimulus. Many of these men come out as women in their 50s.
The second is a friend’s now adult child. Came out at 15. Had spent a lot of time in the bedroom on the internet. Socially awkward when growing up appeared to have some obsessive traits, especially around Thomas the Tank Engine, which was the only subject of conversation for about 5 years. Parents split soon after birth. Father only ever interested in a relationship with the older sister, who got sleepovers, presents, time with paternal family. Nothing for this child, who went on to witness DV , and also rape by older brother. Moved to Scotland to form a ‘lesbian’ relationship with a trans identified male; they met on the internet. Very little therapeutic work, it seems. On HR, has grown breast and long hair. Returned home and remains in bedroom, rarely goes out and uploads airbrushed pictures of themselves and likes post that refer to prettiness.
The third is a friend’s grandchild. Now in LA Care. His world changed when his baby sister was born. He was about 3 years old. Suddenly told everybody he was a girl. Insisted on the female equivalent of his name, girly clothes. He was indulged to a degree and he appeared to relish the attention. The Care Proceedings due to drug abuse and DV. Long term foster care with younger sister. A change of school and this boy socially transitioned, made an announcement to his classmates that he is in fact a girl and was supported in his trans identity at school. Birth parents not consulted, nor grandparents who were having regular family time. Then secondary school, as a girl. The Tavistock were unwilling to offer an appointment until life story work was completed, however this boy was currently on social worker 15, team manager 3 and IRO number 3, so you can imagine how much first hand information had been lost. Then puberty hit, and lockdown. He returned to school identifying as the boy that he is, and is very angry that the adults around him allowed and encouraged him to go to school as a girl. He feels embarrassed and ashamed.
These are are the people that I personally know, as a member of the public. As a social worker I am very concerned that if unable to challenge the narrative that TWAW, TMAM, that I will be doing a disservice to the families that I work with, especially when at any one time, approximately 40,000 girls are crowdfunding to have double masectomies, also known as ‘top surgery’, which sounds so much less damaging.
As a member of the public, and a lesbian, I am concerned at the level of homophobia within the rainbow community. The number of males who now identify as lesbian, the overwhelming majority remain fully intact, who deem it acceptable to denigrate homosexual women for failing to be attracted to their male bodies. Gay men are also experience horrific abuse. My favourite phrases are ‘choke on my girldick’, ‘genital fetish’, ‘relearn your preferences’. It feels as though 30 years of campaigning for acceptance as a homosexual count for nothing.
As a member of the public, and a woman, I am concerned about the impact of males accessing female spaces, including hospital wards, prisons, public toilets, changing rooms, political shortlists, scholarships, sports, DV refuges. Yes, the number of males accessing these spaces is relatively small, however their impact upon the protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation and religious belief is huge. Why do males need to access breast feeding groups, or a group for women who miscarried as a result of DV?
As a member of the public, and a grandparent, I fear for my unique and quirky grandson, who flounces, poses and likes to have his toenails painted. We encourage him to believe that a boy can present as sensitive, creative, affectionate, to wear what he wants, to have girls as friends. However some guidance within schools appears to be suggesting that these are traits that belong on planet girl. At the moment he is too young to have unsupervised access to the millions of videos and forums which have sprung up over the past few years, many of which are very seductive for young people who might feel socially awkward, a whole community to embrace them, make them feel that they are understood, that they belong, that those who disagree hate them, that they might kill themselves.
We should all be aware of the information posted by the Tavistock about additional presentations, such as ASD ( a much greater percentage than in the general population), childhood trauma and abuse, exposure to DV, parental rejection, same sex attraction, mental illness, eating disorder. Research shows that 80% of children who present with gender dysphoria resolve this when they go through puberty, if not socially or medically transitioned.
I will support any child on my caseload who is experiencing gender dysphoria, but I will provide them with information from a very wide range of sources, such as NHS, Safeschools Alliance, Mermaids, Transgender Trend. Any decisions made by that young person and their caregiver need to be fully informed and well thought through.
So, SWE, where do I stand? Am I anti trans, or as a social worker am I evidencing professional curiosity?
Thank you. This is important testimony. Stay strong.
If I attend a training course that has as its premise that gender is “assigned” at birth and sex does not exist and I choose to critically reflect on this and challenge the assumption for my CPD, will I put my registration in jeopardy because I reach a learning point contrary to what SWE expect me to have reached? Is erasing female identity a core ethical principle of social work that we have to slavishly devote ourselves to now? A ‘regulator’ that frames ethical practice on an ideology without regard to law is a sham shell not fit to claim it upholds the safety of the public as its purpose. Persecution to appease is not protection.
Social work students quitting courses and using food banks because of financial hardship, a council is asked to review all residential care placements because it denies genuine choice, another is found to be failing NQSWs, significant concern is raised by ADCS over the Care Review, two in five BIAs not receiving supervision, arrested children to continue to be held in police cells to just name a few of the issues concerning social workers. What challenges SWE amongst all this though is a determination to sanction a social worker not because she is a discriminating transphobe but because she holds a belief upheld in law that SWE has determined is contrary to an arbitrary standard of ethical practice. And some still pretend we are a profession and not an unfunny joke “regulated” by a bunch of non accountable failures. Pitiful.
Is SWE a prody?
SWE professional standards: 3.1: “As a social worker I will work within legal and ethical frameworks, using my professional authority and judgement appropriately”.
3.5: “Hold different explanations in mind and use evidence to inform my decisions”. The case examiners did not establish that the social worker breached those standards from the evidence they scrutinised. Indeed the prejudice applied by the case examiners in their judgement is chilling. They assert the opinion that “it is unusual for social workers who hold discriminatory views to be able to put these aside” yet admit that no evidence of discrimination is evidenced or proven against the social worker. Irrespective of that evidence and based on their own opinion alone, they feel emboldened to sanction our collague for misconduct. That is a McCarthyite bind no person can unwound themselves from. Rather than advocate for an “open debate” SWE should be investigating the conduct of their own officers in what is a blatant miscarriage contrary to natural justice and breach of the Equality Act. If as social.wirkers we are held to ethical standards, so should SWE. Or is anonymity a permission to bismearch the reputation of an honourable social worker on the personal prejudice of unaccountable case examiners? Is this what our fees are for? Frankly I am also shocked and disheartened by the silence on this by our so called leaders and newly venerated MBEs. Why are you so comfortable about the persecution of a social worker who by all objective accounts is an ethical practitioner and a sensitive person?
I have contaced my MP to inform her of my concern over this unjust sanction and express my view as a social worker and manager that SWE are not fit for purpose. Being a Tory she will no doubt delight in social worker bashing but I can tolerate those if it means we can be protected from these SWE zealots. Our integrity is a bigger issue than the usual insults that might be slung our way again.
There is without doubt a serious clash between women’s rights and the needs of men to self declare that they are women and must be treated as such in every circumstance. This obviously erodes women’s rights to the safety and dignity that is afforded by single sex provision. There is without doubt a serious child protection issue if the ‘affirmation’ path of transition is accepted without question as it will lead a great many children into medical transition which is irreversible and has life long consequences, including sterility and loss of sexual function.
It is very disappointing to see here that a social worker felt she had no choice but to ‘recant’ her ‘wrong think’ to keep her job. It is more than disappointing, it is alarming to see that social work of ALL the professions appears to be unable to tolerate dissent, discussion and challenge – particularly when this directly impacts the welfare of children.
I welcome the calls for more and better discussion about all of this and hope that Social Work England will communicate with a wide range of people, and not simply retread a very narrow path of one particular ideology.
This case is actually worse than how you reported it. One ground for sanctioning this social worker was that she chose to ‘block’ the complainant rather than engage with them on her post. The implication of this is horrifying. If as a female social worker I block an Incel from wanting to engage with me and thay complain that I am discriminating against them then potentially I would be sanctioned for not engaging with him to better understand his views. The case report is on SWE website. I urge all social workers to read it not just fir the flowed, rejudicial and judgemental reasoning but the sinister and arrogant tone in which it is written. This is what happens when “public servants” fear no sanctions or are held accountable for their actions.
Oh no, SWE are found lacking on anti-discrimination again… Maybe we need an independent inquiry?
I am on the verge of retiring so have nothing to fear from the self righteous SWE bullies. When a regulator tasked with upholding values that respect and promote diversity chooses to re-frame feminism as offensive we have reached the point where discussion is obsolete. Those of us who got spat at, jeered, assaulted and harassed on Reclaim the Night marches in the 1970’s but persevered with conviction to uphold and enhance womens right to freedom, safety and autonomy perhaps understand more than most what these current attacks on our agency is really about. I’ve been on the supposed extreme left of politics all my post teenage life. I practiced through the dismal horror of Thatcher and the crushing disappointment of Blair. Not once have I been accused of being a risk to people I worked with, some of whom were proud to proclaim their National Front and British National Party allegiances. Those of us who don’t monitor which way the current trends for career progression blow have always sucked up and got on with it. That is what makes us professionals, not some tuppence ha’ppney outfit obsessing over never to be read CPD. Perhaps this is also why with all our social work experience, we will never be recruited to be case examiners. I met Jan Morris on holiday a couple of times. The arbiters who decide on our behalf that our feminism makes us transphobic would do well to listen to her voice also. I would be proud if my Communist Radical Lesbian Feminism offends your ethics SWE. I have loved my profession, bigots and all. But I detest the self serving buraucracy that passes for a ‘Regulator’ more interested in persecuting my colleagues than fighting the injustices that we grapple with daily. You still have 4 months to haul me for misconduct by the way.
Possibly the best comment I have read on any article, ever.
Yes well said
The part of the disciplinary report I find most egregious is the single use of the word “would”. Quote “The case examiners understand how these posts could be perceived to be derogatory andpotentially discriminatory to members of the transgender community. They furtherconsider that others who may not be from that community would also find these viewsoffensive”. Asserting that others who may not be from the transgender community WOULD find the views offensive is quite the assumption. It is possible they COULD be found offensive. Would suggests that they simply are offensive. This by the social work regulator. Outrageous.
EBSWA has been founded to challenge the capture of social work profession by unevidenced theories about sex and gender. We wrote to SWE, BASW, CAFCAS, and the Scottish and Welsh regulators raising our concerns about the silencing of discussion and inviting them to ensure that there was a full and transparent scrutiny of the evidence to support claims such as that children can be born in the wrong body, that men can be lesbians, that penises can be female, and that men can give birth. Sadly, SWE chose not to pay attention to our concerns about the impact on safeguarding and on public confidence in social work. We are looking to engage many more social workers with our work, and invite interested social workers to contact us via our website https://www.ebswa.org/ or via Twitter @ebswa
The link goes to a lighting company website
Hi Mandy,
We’ve now corrected the web link.
Thanks,
Mithran
This is truly horrific. The aggressive tactics used against women who express gender critical views is appalling. Women are rightfully concerned about the cross over of rights and the implications it has, there should be acknowledgement this is a valid viewpoint and that social workers shouldn’t be punished for expressing a concern about the implications of gender ideology on vulnerable people.
I’m a practising social worker and have signed the same petitions. i have donated money. I fully understand what I am contributing to. Perhaps SWE will ask Community Care for my personal details so I be sanctioned, in fact by their own reasoning that is exactly what they should do.
We are a female profession, our client group are generally female. As a profession we need to think clearly about the impact on vulnerable women of policies such as self identification. We need space to talk about the increase of traumatised children identifying out of their birth sex.
This makes truly chilling reading. Nothing would undermine public confidence more than this decision by SWE. What evidence do they present that this practitioner’s views would undermine public confidence when it is the case that the vast majority of the public share a similar position on sex/gender and women’s rights? I don’t pay my SWE registration fees for them to police my thoughts and those of social work colleagues.
The silence from BASW on the persecution of a female social worker is telling. This woman will no longer be a member of a cowardly and complicit outfit pretending that it values diversity and inclusion. Grift on somebody elses subs.
I’d be very interested to hear the views from the EDI Leads at SWE (Ahmina Akhtar) and BASW (Narinder Sidhu) about this situation. Very little I presume…. What do they actually do each day??
Well BASW are committed to inclusion but apparently that doesn’t apply to women. SWE are no doubt busy organising a survey to find out what our views are on “ethical tension.”
No wonder the BASW EDI lead hasn’t commented on this debate, she doesn’t have a clue, as per this tweet
https://twitter.com/sidhu_nk/status/1387581842837188611?s=21
Also, the SWE EDI lead is a cardboard cut-out, as this article confirms
https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2021/05/28/right-focus-race-must-look-equality-social-work-round/
All in all, EDI from both organisations is a sham.
According to SWE people like me who hold “discriminatory views” are unable to put them “aside”. Well I hate bigots, I hate racists, I hate what the Tories did to my town and I hate the bureaucracy that passes for a regulator. Yet I am able to work with homophobes, people who yell at me to go back to where I come from, accept supervision and guidance from a manager who was a Tory Councillor before becoming a social worker and be a good obedient practitioner who knows his place and pay my fees and upload my CPD to satisfy the requirements of unaccountable bureaucrats. It says all we need to know about the mindset of SWE that they are unable to manage this and project their inadequacies on to honest, hard working, diligent and conscientious social workers. Rotten does not do justice to the self aggrandising bullying that disguises prejudice and intolerance as ethics. Perhaps woman hatred is a better description.
The case examiner is a registered social worker apparently. And a practitioner. A future Director too no doubt. And a man telling a woman what she must think.
Devastating. For a social worker to be punished for gender critical views and forced into line goes against the Equality Act – see Maya Forstater’s case. The comparison with racism cases is illogical and misplaced – whereas racism targets someone because of their race or skin colour and expresses hateful or discriminatory feelings against them because of that, expressing a gender critical view does not equal a discriminatory attitude towards any individual person. Most gender critical people do not discriminate against someone because they are trans and expressing gender critical views should never seen as offensive or discriminatory. For social workers to be frightened of expressing or acting on their beliefs surely leads to unsafe practice.
So what are the SWE and BASW EDI Leads positions on this?
Test public confidence in your decision SWE by putting up your case examiners to publicly explain their reasoning that gender critical thought is hate crime. Let the public have an opportunity to ask questions. They pay your wages I think. Don’t hide behind a truly chilling report which has perhaps unintentionally exposes the prejudice of your staff. How proud are you of a male case examiner telling a woman what a woman is and what she must believe. Patriarchy parading as support for trans rights is still patriarchy. But than your case examiner has past form in authoritarin decision making I read. Explain why you think a woman should be censured for blocking a person harassing them on the laughably lame grounds that had our colleague not blocked that harrasser she might have been “educated”. I too am nearing retirement. I would be honoured if you come for me also. Nothing to lose in my case. Perhaps you shy away from a gobby woman who is more than happy to have a public hearing. Here is your grounds. I do not believe a man with a penis is a lesbian and that if I refuse to have sex with him I am being a transphobic danger to the public. In anticipation.
Let’s see, public confidence in social work is undermined when women seek to protect their rights or by SWE blithely flouting the the law? Tricky I know.
Social workers are asked to deliver anti-oppressive practice, to be client-led, to empower, to be culturally competent, which all means having an open mind. Anyone who has spent meaningful amounts of time with a range of trans or nonbinary young people will understand a. The terrible lack of therapeutic support available, b. The major impact on mental wellbeing resulting from minority stress (media transphobia), c. The horrendous impact of unsupportive education environments, d. The sheer articulacy young people are able to draw on when it comes to gender and identity. Lots of people make comment on these issues when they lack experience- many people wouldn’t accept this in other contexts! I would urge anyone committed to genuinely staying properly informed to look at the research, for example https://inclusiveeducation652853906.wordpress.com/its-like-my-kid-came-back-overnight-experiences-of-trans-and-non-binary-young-people-and-their-families-seeking-finding-and-engaging-with-clinical-care-in-england/
I urge you, and anyone else reading your comment who would like to balance the above with an alternative view, to read the Bell judgement in full for an understanding of the poor evidence base.
Also here are some links to evidence of the fact of a poor evidence base:
https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/document?id=2334888&returnUrl=search%3fq%3dtransgender%26s%3dDate
https://segm.org/NICE_gender_medicine_systematic_review_finds_poor_quality_evidence
SWE are cowards. They know that if they had proceeded to a FtP hearing the legal protection offered to the social worker under the Equality Act would have kicked in. So they bullied her into accepting a censure and skulked away. Can CC please update is on whether the social worker remains suspended, faces the possibility of being sacked and her welfare please.
How is aligning trans people with paedophiles gender critical thinking? It’s offensive, cruel and prejudiced and I don’t understand how anyone can defend it.
Except that none of us have.
It’s not, and she didn’t. She made a point about the potential impact of gender self ID on safeguarding. All social workers should be concerned about this given our role in balancing rights. What we are defending is our legal right to hold gender critical beliefs.
No one is defending it because no one is doing it. The point is that allowing people to self identify as whatever they want without any challenge or check, is a serious safeguarding concern and it will be abused by people who seek to prey on the vulnerable.
Thank you. I am horrified by the number of responses to this article that seem to suggest that publicly conflating trans people with paedophiles is acceptable behaviour for a registered SW.
I feel DEEPLY reassured about the profession of social work by the responses to this article.
As a union steward I’ve been involved in a number of cases where social media has been used as evidence against employees. The usual response from managers when asked about what would be an acceptable use of social media by staff is “I never post anything on social media’.
This generational difference between an older staff team who see social media as something that can be avoided, and younger generation who have used it almost all their lives, is stark and is going to cause problems. Young people know that social media is not real life, that people can post things they regret and that views can, and do, change as people get older.
No normal teenager is going to stop posting just in case they get a job as a social worker when they grow up.
Most of the comments below this article are really troubling. The majority of women in the UK are supportive of trans rights and do not see a conflict between women’s rights and trans women’s rights (citation: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/ogu5gtx9us/PinkNewsResults_200629_Education_Selfidentity.pdf). Conflating trans women with paedophiles is essentially just a rehash of 1980’s era homophobia; it was defeated then and should be rejected now.
These comments do not protect, support or enable my rights as a woman. I fully reject this ‘Gender Critical’ stance and I call on other women in social work to stand up for the rights of trans and non-binary people to be allowed to live in peace without facing bigotry. Our profession should be leading on the fight for equality and justice for groups within our society who are facing oppression.
Michelle, if you are going to refer to a survey please include the whole of it so for example we can see that majority of people oppose making it easier to legally change gender. I happen to disgree with that stance but equally I don’t support selective use of surveys to double down on the vilification and bullying of a female social worker.
Well Michelle I am a lesbian who struggled throughout her teens and early adulthood with guilt and shame because of loving women over men. Eating disorder and self harm part of the package for me. When I am accused, as I have been in a bar, of being transphobic because someone overheard our discussion and abhorrence of the “cotton ceiling” polemic, who is oppressed there? Why are lesbians to be erased to appease men who decide they are lesbian, penis intact, when none of whom have experienced what it means to be a lesbian? Why are we expendable fodder in your world? That’s the real homophobia.
I have experienced the same as have many gay men in my circle. If gender identity is prioritised then sex no longer exists, nor same sex attraction, nor the ability to identify and challenge sex discrimination.
If you are so passionate about combating bigotry Michelle you must surely see the bigotry in a mindset that forces a social worker to choose between their job and their beliefs. Policing thoughts today can lead to a future you might find not so accommodating of your convictions if prevailing orthodoxies change. Authoritarian certainty has a tendency for suppression on a whim after all.
I hesitate to put this, but I’m just off to be a social work student (17days to go) Am I to assume the idea of “I think therefore I am” has now been replaced by “I think what I am told or I am not”. Please advise.
Yes
A tad arrogant to accuse those with different views of “lacking experience” to understand and comment. We are not ignorant of research and evidence. Many of us have worked with and support trans people. This doesn’t preclude us having a view about attacks on women by a very vocal and aggressive trans lobby. As for responses to an “article” way off the mark actually. This is not an article. It’s a journalist reporting bullying of a female social worker by SWE to recant her views or be de-registered and thus lose her job. There is nothing reassuring about a regulator that only tolerates a mono view of what social workers should think. By all means approve of authoritarianism and applaud an assault on freedom of expression but don’t insult us by implying we are lesser than you for thinking differently. There is one side who are suppressing diversity of thought and its not gender critical women Andy.
What disturbed you Andy?
Well done everyone here who has stood up
What we are seeing is a progressively authoritarian and totalitarian regime from SWE, taking bizarre positions on anti-discrimination, anti-racism and anti-oppression. It’s a covert operation, but it’s creeping in day by day, month by month.
The role of SWE is to neutralise and sterilise social work so that privatising it will be easier for its government puppeteers, that much is clear to me. As intelligent people, watch and think.
We need to start the long and arduous process of ousting SWE from social work now, although they are surely set to implode at some point based on the evident chaos within its ranks.
A study with a researcher from Mermaids as a core member hardly qualifies for the self definition of “no conflicts of interest” now does it. And long waits for NHS treatment are hardly restricted to puberty blockers are they? To date there are 5.4 million people on a hospital waiting list in England. We can be open minded and be evidence based at the same time surprisingly. It’s precisely because we don’t lack experience that we question. Affirmation without reflection is incomprehension disguised as empathy.
I am a female, feminist social worker and quite frankly most of the comments on this article have made me feel literally sick. Do any of you really know any trans women? Do you understand the discrimination, fear and psychological turmoil they experience? I’d argue that on balancing my sex against their gender; they are far more vulnerable than me. Trans women are part of the sisterhood and they need the support of both feminists and social workers; as by definition we are against discrimination and for equality of life opportunities.
Furthermore they are a protected group under the Equality Act. It is our legal as well as ethical duty not to discriminate against them. I’m an atheist but I don’t spend my time signing petitions against religion being taught in school or post on social media equating religious people to paedophiles etc.
And to those concerned about children wanting to change their gender then reversing the decision later; maybe focus your energy on fighting for gender equality so those kids feel like they can truly be themselves and have the same opportunities no matter how they were born…
Yes, we’re keen to hear the voices of people who identify as transwomen. Many of them also identify as GC. Here are links so that you can hear a wide variety of trans voices:
https://uncommongroundmedia.com/as-a-transsexual-i-support-dr-eva-poen/
https://youtu.be/sowoe71lB6A
https://youtu.be/FPdhIjWgKFg
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/03/gender-identity-needs-to-be-based-on-objective-evidence-rather-than-feelings
The Equality Act does indeed recognise those who have undergone gender reassignment. At the time it was written there were approximately 5000 people who had been through years of psychotherapy and had undergone surgery or moving in that direction. These days the numbers identifying as trans are approximately 600,000 and the majority are trans on the basis that they say they are.
Gender Identity is NOT a protected characteristic.
Sex is a protected characteristic, especially in instances where females might find themselves in a positiion of vulnerability, such as in hospital, prison, in a public toilet or changing room, domestic violence refuge.
Religion is a protcted characteristic–so females who cannot, for religious reasons be alone with a male can access sex specific amenities without discomfort.
Sexual Orientation is a protected characteristic–same sex attracted individuals should be able to live their lives free from discrimination and harrassment.
Philosophical Belief is also a protected characteristic, as evidenced recently in the Maya Forstater case. The Equality and Human Rights Commission felt so strongly about her case that they requested a role of Intervener in the Hearing.
So, whose protected characteristic should take priority? The material biolgogical reality, the philosophical belief, the religious belief, the subjective belief, the innate sexual orientation?
If Social Work England was committed to human rights, it would recognise and uphold article 9 of the ECHR is ‘the right to have freedom of thought, religion and belief.
This means that an individual should be able to practice this without discrimination.
This includes the right to speak freely about those beliefs (as with evangelical Christianity for example and also being Gender Critical) hold, beliefs and hear the views of others (Which is Article 10).
Article 9 also includes the right to NOT believe, in other words, people should NOT be forced to believe in gender ideology, which is after all, not based in scientific fact.
Article 10 discusses the fact that those views should NOT be expressed if they cause harm.
Sharing opinion and belief is not harmful to anyone unless it involves harassment (targets an individual multiple times) and clear incitement to take action -which I am sure very rarely happens in comment sections on Twitter.
Social Work England needs to urgently review the way it upholds the rights of its members and who it takes its direction from.
The Stonewall Diversity Scheme (for example) is not fit for purpose and has moved from a highly successful, professional charity to a highly motivated political organisation with very fundamentalist pseudo-scientific views.
Other organisations are for this reason, quite rightly cutting ties.
We fight for gender equality but not at the expense of sex based rights. All I know is that when a talk I tried to attend at Goldsmith’s was broken up by trans activists smashing windows, insulting and assaulting us, women were the vulnerable ones. Perhaps you think being referred to as a Terf c***t is a price I should pay for the imaginary inclusive sisterhood. In any case what we are discussing here is a female social worker being told by a male case examiner that she holds the wrong beliefs and must recant and conform or lose her livelihood. Why is that acceptable to you Sarah? Or is she not part of the sisterhood because her beliefs do not conform to trans group think?
Claiming Mermaids have no conflict of interest in trans research is like saying trade unions have no self interest advocating for workers rights. Getting back to the thought police that passess for a regulator though, I wouldn’t be so certain that they would not about turn on trans advocacy if their strings were tweaked by their Tory paymasters. Support those who proscribed thought when it suits you but be mindful that authoritarians without principle salivate over who to whack next. It’s their gravy. “It could be you” means someone else hasn’t won the lottery.
The logic of being told I can only understand someone if I walk in their shoes is akin to telling me I can’t understand how dangerous a volcano is unless I fall in one. Facts are objective truths.
For a regulator that insists on evidence based CPD for us to retain our registration, SWE seem very relaxed about facts. How typical of the bully that while seeing transphobia he, the case examiner, is ultra relaxed about misogyny. To swat away biology so a woman must accept male self-definition of woman and be punished for an imagined transgration so she knows her male alloted place is chauvinist prejudice amplified. Telling a woman that she can not work unless she grovels to a man is no different than telling her a womans place is in the kitchen. These things matter not because I have a vagina, they matter because it should never be acceptable for a regulator to empower a man to be the arbiter of what women should believe. A man defining a womans agency is not my idea of inclusion.
Those of you who are “disturbed” by women objecting to being policed to stay in our enforced lane, should consider what making a woman say she was misled by feminists is really about. Women have fought and struggled for our safety and autonomy to allow men to tell us where we belong. SWE can pretend all it wants that justice, equality and inclusion is its core but women are not fooled by bullies. We have life time experiences of men pretending to look out for us while herding us into their idea of who we should be, how we should behave and what we should think. Social work is full of men with liberal pretences. We see through all of you. We have sat in too many meetings, listened to too many loud voices spouting their superior righteousness to be fooled by pretences. We get through the day by ignoring you just until the point when you abuse us. This is where we are with SWE now. So I stand with those who choose to repudiate this sanction. I too stand up for womens autonomy and freedom of thought. I reject that what was posted, the blocking of an aggressive responder and saying safeguarding matters brings social work into disrepute. So given how fond SWE is of policing women, I too ask that you hold an open FtP hearing on me for these beliefs. For those of us who don’t frame our social work with a lust for an MBE, integrity matters, consistency matters. So I stand with Caroline and Rosie. Show mettle and try me too. The public deserves protecting don’t they? Those of us who are older see through the muddle that is a pretence of a regulator. We are not fooled by hypocrites who blow hither and thither then do us down when it really matters. We have spirit and resilience, we are not easily cowed by bullies. Here I am, saying the same things, believing the same thoughts. Come get me too.
I would love to see social workers revolt against SWE for their opposition to core social work values!
I share everyones disgust with SWE. I would like to know that our colleague is not being persecuted by her employer also.
I will upload a CDP compliant with the approved ideology. I will pay my fees. I don’t have a gravy boat to drain so I will comply. I am a wage dependent cog. But I will not pretend that this is a regulator with integrity. I will see it for the social worker hating mob that it is. There aren’t many social workers amongst your gaggle of zealots are there SWE? Nobody told me I would forfeit my rights as a citizen when I qualified as a social worker. Nobody told me I would be accountable to a thought police. Nobody told me I would be beholden to misogynists. Nobody told me I would have to bow down to nonentities. Nobody told me my conduct would be overseen by self loathing cowards. I will see you for the guardians of woman hate you are. But I will not show you respect. I will not feel part of you. I will not carry a pitchfork for you. I will resent you. I will know what claiming to be a “Regulator doing things in a new way” really means. I will know that you punish us to cover up your intellectual vacuity. I will know that a true vision of justice lie elsewhere. I will join in with the real regulators in sneering at your miserable inadequacy. So do your best impression of what you think a professional regulator should be. But know this, you have no credibility with those of us not part of your chumocracy. Know that for every MBE that desperately tries to make you what you can never be, there are many who just laugh at your desperation. You impress only the blow with the wind careerists. You don’t fool us, you don’t own us. You are a ghost regulator. And like the misty wandering spirit beloved of the desperate and the gullible, your existence, even as a half trustworthy entity, is not a certainty. Heard the one about the social worker who had pride in social work? I didn’t think so. My sincerest best wishes to my colleague. I wish I could do more to show you that more of us respect you than want to bismerch you. Solidarity is not enough but that’s all I have.
The only ethical tension I know is between social workers drowning in bureaucratic irrelevance and irrelevant bureaucrats pretending to be a regulator.
What is becoming very clear, is that as social workers we are being forced to pay a ‘regulator’ a registration fee that seeks to discriminate and oppress us. How can we reject this and eject them? We need to do this quickly!
Dear SWE, on a visit and greet to our office space today the PSW told a colleague that she should remove her copy of Harry Potter from her desk and not bring it to work. Not because no self respecting adult should be reading a childrens book but because it seems JK Rowling is a transphobe spewing hate speech incompatible with social work values. Should I report my colleague to you for reading Harry Potter? Should we not have engaged our esteemed PSW in an admittedly fruitless discussion? Should I report my self for re-education as I agree with my colleagues that JK Rowling has legitimate views on sex based rights? Is it possible for your EDI lead to complile a SWE endorsed fiction reading list so we can avoid transgressive literature and not jeopardise our registration. Your leadership and advice would really help us hold the right beliefs. Hopefully as I have already uploaded my CPD I can be spared opprobrium if I have inadvertently deviated from the correct path by trying to debate with the PSW.
I agree with the PSW, I too find what JK Rowling says about trans and non-binary folk discriminatory. A book that traumatised colleagues and services users if they saw it has no place at work. I also question how any social worker sharing the views of the author can practice in an anti-oppressive way.
What has J K Rowling said which is discriminatory? Can you specifically point me to something she has said. Are you seriously suggesting that qualified social workers might be ‘traumatised’ by Harry Potter, would such a person be equally ‘traumatised’ if a young person was reading a J K Rowling?
This ruling should have you quaking in your bigoted boots SWE:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/04/gender-identity-clinic-whistleblower-wins-damages
What.i find incredible is that I cannot find an article about this in Community Care Magazine.
A whistleblowing social worker has been vindicated following a concerted campaign against her by her employers and some.colleagues.
She raised serious safeguarding concerns for children and young people.
And yet there appears to be no me tion of her success in court, ir any background to the case. I searched.sonia appleby and got job adverts
Thanks for this. The article on the tribunal is just being edited and will be up by Monday.
This very day SWE are advertising for 2 investigators “who will play a key role delivering modern and efficient fitness to practise investigations.” Apparently they will also contribute to the development of the “new” organisation. I am reassured that neither a social work qualification nor social work experience is required. You will be tested on whether you can spell your own name though. Closing date for applications is 13th September. If you know someone who is not a qualified social worker and doesn’t have any experience or knowledge of what social workers do, let them know this is could be their dream job.
Why are the normally vocal anti-racist and anti-oppressive equality champions silent over this? You must have a view given your determination to combat prejudice. If you support what SWE has done tell us why. If you think they are wrong to sanction tell us why. Your declared leadership matters and this issue matters to social workers. “I signed the pledge” swaction21 folk time for you to stand up too. Anti-racist conviction can look like cowardice and self interest when silence is not an option on the treatment of a female social worker. Women matter too don’t they?
I think your definition of anti-racism is narrow Jane. True anti-racism is intersectional. Look deeper – you’ll find it!
Obliged if you point out where I’ve defined racism in asking avowed anti-racists for comment. Thanks for the enlightenment about intersectionality and how to find its true meaning. My little woman brain so feeble independent thought hurts. Seems telling women “how to” is the new social work orthodoxy. Can I go now?
A man telling a woman to look deeper. A male SWE case examiner telling a woman she has the wrong thoughts. We get it. We should know are place and keep our mouths shut. But where is the fun in that? We’d rather infuriate you.
Oh my, that told her.
Women eh Mark H. They will go on about things they don’t understand. Keep up the vigilance.
You might want to take a moment for introspection there Mark H. Reflection is good for the soul. And it’s all the rage during registration season.
XY person tells XX person they are making too much wrong noise.
Those of you not demoralised enough already should read what SWE are advising those not currently practicing because they are on long term leave what their CPD could be about.
BASW might choose not to comment on the persecution of our colleague but it could update us on the response of SWE when informed of social work managers withholding PPE from black social workers. You did raise racist bullying and discrimination with the regulator didn’t you? Even as a headline in your regular meetings with SWE? It isn’t enough to be non-racist we have to be proactively anti-racist don’t we? Because I pay my membership fee, and because transparency matters, were you?
Anti-transphobia or anti- women’s rights? Appreciate advice on which will get me an MBE quickest? Happy to stay silent if that is the better option.
All of them depending on which way the orthodoxy is swinging. Timing is everything. Leave conviction to the general churn.
SWE: obsessed with controlling thought, content to leave oppressive structures be.
My thoughts exactly Valerie!
Slightly concerning that my comment above was interpreted as an attack on women. I guess sometimes people just want to create their own devil in the detail.
Care to explain what the detail is?
Your exclamation marks says different Mark H.
Whatever Professor Crenshaw claims for it, Intersectionality is a trojan deceit that gives a free pass to some white folk to virtue signal “allyship” while disguising their privilege. Flip side, it’s a favourite rallying port for right wing commentators because they understand tit has the appearance of a challenge their hegemony while allowing them to get on with fanning rabbit whole narratives to exhaust. If as a black woman who wants to defend my sex based rights I haven’t dug deep enough to understand complexity, a man guide could help?
Is what Cythia says about Intersectionality the detail or the devil Mark H.
I think saying women need to dig deeper to understand what is so obvious to a man and then accusing them of conjuring
a devil out of their ignorance qualifies as an attack. Not much nuance in an exclamation mark is there?
I took the advice and walked a mile in the shoes of the person who knew they were born into the wrong body and knew what their true gender was from earliest childhood. I’ve internalised that once a child knows their true gender it is fixed so they should be given the medical treatment they deserve at the earliest point they ask for to transition. But if children know their true gender and should be given medical intervention to fix this, where does that leave the gender fluid folk? Is the person who wants to transition with State medical help an enemy of the gender fluid? Is the person who wants to de-transition a victim of gender critical feminists? Is childhood gender identification the bedrock for the oppression faced by the gender fluid? Is gender fluidity akin to Karl Marx telling us that in the post capitalist economy where division of labour is abolished one can fish in the morning, herd cattle in the afternoon, debate in the evening or just have a mind and do none if those? If self identification is a human right, is talking about gender identity not just meaningless but violence against the gender fluid? Is the self identifications of transwomen, transmen, the intersex the same discriminatory toxicity of heterosexual, lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals and feminists? Are my questions offensive and oppressive? Do they debase social work values ? Am I
undermining public confidence in social work? Do they warrant a fitness to practice investigation and sanction?
Given that 80% of children desist once they’ve.gone through puberty, given the safeguarding concerns raised by Sonia Appleby, given the Keira Bell judgement I find it strange that you might be suggesting that detransitioners might be the victims of gender critical feminists. I would be interested to understand how you have made that leap.
In addition, people who have a diagnosis of DSD are not and never have identified as trans, and many are.angry and upset that their medical condition has been appropriated by gender theorists as a means to justify trans ideology.
As for the hierarchy of oppression I would argue that homosexuals, especially lesbians, are suffering more now than at any time in our recent history, because the abuse, bigotry, vilification now comes.from within, from trans activists who insist that our sexual orientation is nothing more than a genital fetish, something to be unlearned, a preference, a choice, that we.are transphobic. Outside of the rainbow there appears to be an assumption that LGBTQ+ is a big happy glitter family. Much.like the now discredited assumption that BAME recognises the needs of the different groups which were housed within the acronym, the split between LGB and TQ+ will serve to meet the needs of the two very distinct groups.
Miserable failure at irony on my part Fraiserfanclub1. For clarity, I agree with all the points you made.
A suggest a quite moment reading Emma Dabiri Mark H. If you have read her I would really be interested in what you think of her arguments given you feel attacked here. I write this not in hostility but because I value free exchange of ideas without unnecessary exclamations. Keep well.
Putting up Intersectionalty as a defence of a Regulator censoring and sanctioning a woman for defending women’s sex based rights and excusing the silence of self declared anti-racists and BASW to not even comment on this, for or against the action of SWE, is like arguing because millions of chickens say nothing about millions of turkey also getting slaughtered and factory farming is where they Intersect, it’s OK to keep quiet about factory farming. That’s my take. If I have dug too shallow any man is free to exercise his privilege to point out my ignorance. With or without a wry chuckle. Or an exclamation mark.
This is a poor attempt at comedy Susie & co!