Thread by @ginamartinuk

I brought the "upskirting law" into affect in 2019.

Le'ts talk about that image JK Rowling shared.

She did this to humiliate artist Freda Wallace. That is a specific motivation we included in the Voyeurism Act. We fought for, and included it *specifically* because... 🧵

men often upskirt women (it is overwhelmingly men) to "punish" them for their bodies, clothing and for being a woman, by humiliating them.

That's called misogyny and it's what we're witnessing Joanne do here: transmisogyny.

It goes like this:

1. Target someone you dehumanise
2. Assert power with demand (Joanne wanted to debate Freda, for me a man wanted a "yes" to his advances)
3. If they refuse, punish them by capturing a "humiliating" image of their body
4. Share it to exert power and humiliate

Exact same logic.

now, Joanne didn't captured this image and she didn't capture it 'beneath' Freda's clothing, which adds questions about prosecution under the Voyeurism Act (though it doesn't 100% discount it).

Sharing the image is a separate issue here too.

Even if it didn't fit neatly under The Voyeurism Act, that doesn't make it any less wrong.

The law is *never* a guide for morality and law's do not reflect the complex ways people harass and/or assault people.

Joanne is spending millions and committing her life to pushing trans people out of public life.

She is a harassing, harmful bully contorting the logic of advocacy to hurt marginalised people and retain some sort of twisted relevance.

I support trans people to live free from harassment, harm and demonisation.
I always will.
Because I believe in human rights.

I do not, and will never, support a billionaire using wealth and power to harass and harm people of any gender.