[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
Just taking a look back at what Amnesty International said very confidently to the Gender Recognition Act reform consultation in 2018 (they were advocating for removing all safeguards and controls from getting a GRC)
Giving out more GRCs will not affect anyone else they said.
It would have no effect on the operation of the single and separate sex exceptions in the Equality Act.
None on the occupational requirements exceptions in the Equality Act.
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.