Two statements competing for most craven newspeak capitulation of the week. First @SEBuitendijk Vice Provost @imperialcollege: "I support academic freedom to debate all ideas on social media. Except this. I will stop engaging with wrongthink in order to promote open discussion"
Then there is @PHMMcr We recognise there are different perspectives. "We encourage debate on all issues. Except this. We will remove expressions of wrongthink from our space in order to invite thought and discussion and be welcoming to all. "
And here is today's #newspeak#cravencapitualtion@andywightman "will engage in respectful dialogue" , apologises for "hurt and distress" caused by attending meeting on wome's sex based rights. "Defends free speech" but woman calling male attacker "he" should be shunned
Also, could women calling out their utter disappointment please fuck off #respectfuldialogue
@andywightman Adding to the thread of apologies . Here the @GreensNSW apologise for publishing an opinion piece by a member stating that women exist as a sex
Adding @TheStage to the #whereisyoubackbone list. There is an issue about which people disagree. So we commissioned two pieces to help people understand both sides .... and for that we apologise.
Here is the perfectly reasonable article by @sarahditum
@sarahditum The article that gave the 'right side of history' view was by @ambermb but she apologised almost as soon as it was published being the wrong kind of person (as a bog standard female) to write an article about whether women's toilets should be made unisex.
@sarahditum@ambermb Apologies and non-apologies..... back in June the @nscpcc appointed Munroe Bergdorf as an ambassador, and then quickly changed their mind when they realised they had not done their due diligence on Bergdorf's suitability bbc.co.uk/news/uk-486434…
This was a failure by @nspcc. It was right they they apologised to Bergdorf for their mishandling, but their first priority must be children, not celebrity hurt feelings, or rainbow branding nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/new…
Concerns about Bergdorf being linked to the children's charity were serious: inviting children to make contact directly, and promoting sexualisation of children as 'drag kids'.
150 NSPCC staff responded with a letter saying they were "deeply disappointed about the treatment of Munroe by the organisation" - they said the concerns were pressure from “a relatively small group of people” and they condemned the decision theguardian.com/society/2019/j…
Let that sink in. There are 150 staff at NSPCC who see nothing wrong with an adult inviting vulnerable children to contact them by DM, and in saying kids are never to young to engage in sexualised behaviour for adult's entertainment. No problem at all.... dazeddigital.com/life-culture/a…
Another big fan of 'drag kid' Desmond is Amazing is paedophile Tom O’Carroll (of PIE fame)..... it is just not OK for an NSPCC celebrity ambassador to be promoting this.
@PeterWanless issued an apology mainly to Bergdorf (who was badly treated), but burying the bit where NSPCC recognised the failure of their due diligence processes right at the end. nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/new…
The women of Mumsnet were concerned that NSPCC were brushing its internal due diligence failure under the carpet and taking their eye off the ball of child safeguarding and so they started to investigate.... mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_ri…
What they found out was that the person responsible for booking Bergdorf was an NSCPCC employee with a rubber fetish who posted obscene videos of himself filmed in work toilets and business trips & linking this with his professional Linked-in profile uncommongroundmedia.com/nspcc-employee…
This was the @NSPCC 's initial public response when whistleblowers raised this. They said that supporting staff was their priority & people highlighting their concerns were 'bullying'. They urged people to report them to twitter to shut them up.
Quietly it turns out the NSPCC has come to the conclusion that making homemade porn videos at work was 'inconsistent with the values expected of an employee' of the child safeguarding charity.
Will the @NSPCC and @Independent and @guardian apologise for smearing whistleblowers who raised concerns about whether Munroe Bergdorf and James Makings were suitable for working with the NSPCC as 'bullies' and 'anti-trans trolls'? @PeterWanless ?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is what we mean when we say sex matters. It is what the Supreme Court meant when they said you have to be clear about what the different groups are.
It's not a legal nicety. It's not complex. It's not difficult.
It's just basic respect for women's humanity, with common sense.
I am so angry at all the highly paid people failing to do their job, who would not see that it is abusive to allow men into women's changing rooms, toilets and showers.
And even now who are resisting implementing the law. @NotPostingMatt @NHSConfed
Minister @RhonddaBryant says “We are opposing the amendment and are not intending to introduce similar legislation.”
Let’s look at the knots he ties himself in
He says “data accuracy is important. That is equally true for any data used in a digital verification service.”
OK so your new law will enable people to prove their sex accurately then? 🤔
Bryant says “the government is already developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex, via the Data Standards Authority.”
This is distraction.
Monitoring diversity information (which is about populations) is not the only reason why you want sex data.
Some times people want to make sure their sex is accurately recorded:
- For their own healthcare
- For social care
- For a job where sex matters
- For sport
- For safeguarding
- For use of single sex services
“the @StatsRegulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity last year, and all Govt Departments are now considering how best to address the recommendations of the Sullivan review, which we published.”
“That is the first reason why we will not be supporting this new clause or the amendment today.”
It says women only, which means no men.
It is lawful because the situation meets one or more of the “gateway conditions” for a lawful single sex service in the EqA, and it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
Who does the sign discriminate against?
Men directly.
What all of them?
Yes, because they are all excluded by the rule. Even the femmes, the crossdressers, the transwomen, the non-binaries and the gender fluids.
Here we are at @LSELaw for a legal panel discussion on the FWS case. Video will be available later.
Naomi Cunningham says the ruling changes very little .. and it changes everything.
Under the old understanding there was a route to exclude men with GRCs from women only services but it was unclear and uncertain. It sounded difficult to operate. And the @EHRC statutory code said case by case.
So the lineage of that policy that Sussex University has just been fined £0.5m for goes back via Advance HE and the Equality Challenge Unit to the SWP! 🤯