[Thread] My case raises Qs about freedom of speech & belief & how to reconcile women's rights & the rights of transgender people.
So how have the human rights organisations and other NGOs responded?
[Disclaimer: individual staff views do not necessarily represent orgs]
@IndexCensorship@jodieginsberg said back in Nov "I cannot see that MF has done anything wrong other than express an opinion that many feminists share – that there should be a public and open debate about the distinction between sex and gender.”
Incidentally 1,100 people would really, really like to Fawcett society step up and hold some grown up discussion about sex and gender ID
Amnesty International had this to say
Amnesty UK Trustee Senthorun Raj @senthorun endorsed @cmclymer view that JK Rowling (and I) are transphobic for “stating that sex is real"...."a common transphobic assertion that has been dismissed by medical experts and other scientists."
When I was trying to keep my job @CGDev I wrote this in a letter to senior management. I thought that as a think tank we should be open to thinking about the issue.
In practice CGD was not.
But i did end up sparking a lot of conversations around a lot of tables over xmas
I know that while people can say "begone TERF" publicly, people in NGOs who are concerned about the issue are afraid to speak up.
And no mainstream org (or funder) has stepped up to host dialogue or analysis.
This issue will keep running. I hope they find their voice.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The phrase “gender identity” appears 36 times in the judgment
Leonardo’s policy is that any member of staff who is proposing to to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process for the purposes of reassigning their gender can use the toilets intended for the opposite sex.
I am hugely grateful to Naomi Cunningham for the work that she has done as the first chair of Sex Matters, and for her equally important role as a barrister representing claimants using the law to fight for justice.
The arguments made on behalf of the Women and Equalities Minister yesterday were a desperate attempt to shoehorn "case-by-case" back into the single sex services following the Supreme Court judgment.
At paragraph 36 she says there are there are no equivalent exceptions to the single sex service exceptions that apply to employers.
She seems to have forgotten the provisions about protection of women in Schedule 22!
She said that the FWS case was principally decided by reference to maternity rights.
It wasn't. The SC concluded "it important that the EA is interpreted in a clear & consistent way so that groups which share a PC can be identified by those on whom the Act imposes obligations so that they can perform those obligations in a practical way"
Ollie was Chair of the Civil Service Rainbow Alliance for 9 years from 2008 -2017, then held a number of roles in the GEO.
So all the time that the government was getting the law wrong and getting Stonewall prizes for he was leading this.
In 2012 he wrote in Civil Service World about his personal opinion that the government shouldn't renege on its commitment to this particular approach to diversity.
Peter Wilkins case exposes another public body (this one part of @DefenceHQ) that lost sight of the Equality Act and of civil service principles of impartiality and objectivity.
One colleague accused him of making a "threatening" FOI request when he tried to draw attention to @dstlmod 's Line Manager’s Guide.
The FOI was turned down but I tried again.
At first DSTL said they couldn't find the document.
I said "have another look, its on your intranet" and they located it.
Then they thought long and hard about whether they could withhold it on security grounds.