It is surreal to see that declaring a sexual orientation or setting up an association dedicated to improving the lives of LGB people now justifies abuse.
How can it be that LGB status is now a “dog-whistle”?
Or a “provocation” as I have seen one Human Rights barrister describe it repeatedly over the last couple of days.
Stating one’s sexuality, setting boundaries is provocation.
Wow
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“For too long, women and girls have had to put up with behaviours in public spaces that have made them feel uncomfortable, frightened or threatened.” manchesterworld.uk/news/the-probl…
In which case I am sure he will understand objections to granting Hooters, a restaurant which styles itself as a venue where sexual objectification of women is the USP
Here are some of the urban dictionary entries for “hooters”
If your reaction to the new EHRC guidance on single sex guidance is that it should be thrown in the bin.
Then this reveals something of your attitude to women and single sex spaces...
Or if you are CEO of a Women’s Foundation Trust and you decide to follow your friend’s advice to ignore the EHRC’s expert guidance on single sex spaces....
I’d have hoped you would have taken a minute to ask your legal team to undertake due diligence.
A personal highlight from the new U.K. Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on single sex services is that it will overturn the original sexist guidance.
Neither sex should be expected to conform to sexist stereotypes in how they present
There is no correlation between dress sense and sex.
To make a link between the two, when women are socially pressured into feminine presentation in uncomfortable and often impractical clothing is intensely sexist.
High heels do not a woman make.
No woman’s hair and make up choices should be subjected to scrutiny as to how far they meet sexist stereotypes.
1. Prioritising one religion over others can get employees into hot water, the same applies to gender critical beliefs.
All protected beliefs and protected characteristics have to be treated equally.
2. Employees may not believe in gender identity and should not be pressured to state their pronouns, for instance in email signatures. Pressure to do so may be offensive.
Ben Cooper’s closing submissions in Maya’s appeal against the original Employment Tribunal Judgment (that her beliefs are not worthy of respect in a democratic society) are playing on my mind this evening.
I thought maybe they should play on your mind too...
Ben Cooper QC submitted that no one disputes that gender identity beliefs meet the Grainger criteria for section 10 of the Equality Act
(Translation: those people who believe in gender identity are protected from discrimination)
The effect of the original Employment Tribunal Judgment is that Maya must be required to subordinate her use of language to the opposing view in this important debate (about sex and gender) .