People have been tweeting about my "transphobic tweets" but none have been linking to them. Presumably because those who searched my actual timeline thought 'meh'.
Here are all the tweets that are mentioned in the judgement.
First off, a thread about the government's consultation on the Gender Recognition Act.
Then there was this question, which sparked off quite a big discussion with #developmenttwitter on sex and gender. (about 150 tweets in several threaded conversations)
The judgement states, the bundle included tweets from Clair Quentin "who alleged the Claimant had retweeted transphobic material."
This is from a thread in which Clair tweeted screengrabs of my tweets calling me an "anti-trans trans hate cultist" and a "far right bigot"
And urged our mutual professional contacts to block me and
Clair said....
The judgement said "A newspaper cartoon of a person flashing two women at “Hampstead Heath Ladies Pond” with the caption “It’s alright – it’s a woman’s penis”.
Here is my tweet. with my words. It is part of a discussion with #legaltwitter about the application of the Equality Act single sex exemptions in relation to Hampstead ponds. The cartoon is from Private Eye
This was accidental (I forgot). They then reported me to the Scout Association for bigotry & lying (complaint not upheld). I was asked to apologise to Murray for mispronouning. I have said I will, if they apologise for the hurtful & defamatory things they have said about me
j'mnt says: "the Claimant tweeted about her views on tans [sic] women in sport: “Short and to the point by .. “lt is unfair and unsafe for transwomen to compete in women's sport”
Here is the tweet. It is a link to an article by @DebbieHayton a transwoman
“We regret ‘A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK’ briefing was uploaded to our website without going through the established internal review processes that are in place to ensure consistency, accuracy and alignment with Amnesty International UK's positions. It's use of language does not reflect the position of Amnesty International UK which is why it was promptly removed.”
“We remain committed to defending human rights, including both the rights of women and the rights of trans people.”
This is insulting double-speak.
By “the rights of women” they include men who identify as women.
They have told us this for years and years.
This is what they tweeted the day I lost my employment tribunal in 2019 and it was wrongly declared that gender critical beliefs were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”
Amnesty's report on what it calls the "anti-rights movement" is remarkably authoritarian.
It calls on regulators and funders to remove support from organisations it doesn't agree with.
It identifies a long list of gender critical organisations and those it says are involved in "conversion practices" (otherwise known as evidence-based medicine in relation to gender identity issues)
The belief discrimination case of Ricky Garrett v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust has been overturned on appeal.
Mr Garrett was a litigant in person.
The original tribunal found that he had been discriminated against for his belief that "we are all one (human) race" and his non-belief in systemic racism, when, following a complaint about an overheard conversation he was ordered to write an academically referenced written reflection on systemic racism.
This was the original conduct - a discussion with a colleague following workplace promotion of the idea of systemic racism with which Mr Garrett disagreed.
The investigation said his misconduct wasn't about him disagreeing with the theory of systemic racism but the way that he said it.
He was told to write an academically referenced essay to see if his position changed.
Thank you to @louie_french, Shadow Minister for Shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport for coming to the launch of our report Getting Back on Track: using the Equality Act to enable and protect sport for women and girls at the House of Lords this week.
It was such a good event!
@sharrond62 hosted and @wsusportsunion @Womeninsport_uk @SportSEENuk and @WomensRightsNet were in attendance.
Everyone wanted to talk about how the Equality Act works in sport.
The OfS-Sussex judgement is logically flawed and can't be allowed to stand. @ObhishekSaha with a very good analogy about paths.
Sussex's defence was that it had a high level sign saying "this path will only be closed for very good reasons". Therefore it must have had a very good reason 🙄
In order to keep the footpath functionally open the local authority has to apply some rules to the users of the path. It has a duty to keep the path open for cyclists and pedestrians, but not for motorbikes. This is in the bye-laws
(this is the university's equality act compliant equality policy that is part of its governance)
There are some short parts of the path that are so unavoidably narrow that the local authority puts up signs saying "cyclists dismount here" to keep the whole path safe and open for all users.
That is fine, the path is still open to pedestrians and cyclists.
(that's a proportionate means to a legitimate aim in the Equality Act, its "no noisy protests that disrupt exams")