The letter is very clearly NOT saying this. It is pointing out there are differences between racism towards Asian and Black people & saying experience of former does not make you an authority on latter, a sentiment that as a British Asian I wholeheartedly agree with.
I would never ever tell someone who is black that they shouldn’t lecture me about racism simply because I’ve experienced racism myself. It’s an *awful* thing to say.
Even more awful when you put it in the context of the anti-Black racism that we know exists in some parts of Asian communities.
Here is the full exchange - watch it and judge for yourself. It's actually worse than I imagined after reading reports but before watching.
Why I don’t think this is a strong argument against the HE (freedom of speech) provisions🧵
1. Production of knowledge is the core purpose of universities. Academic freedom/academic free speech fundamental to that. At the mo there’s no effective means to enforce existing rights.
2. Academic freedom/free speech key to quality in the HE sector. You can’t have latter without former! 3. There is already a well-established & better understood regime for enforcing disability and other PC rights under the EqAct. Of course aspects onerous & imperfect. See this.
4. Seems weird to argue we should not be striving for or developing best practice around empowering ECHR academic freedom/FOS rights because of issues in other areas. In fact I’d say if the OfS scheme works could be a model for dispute resolution pre legal action in those area.
Another case of a nurse suing a Scottish NHS Trust for failing to provide single-sex changing facilities. The facts will be established by the employment tribunal, but this issue raises serious qu for NHS & for Labour on its position on the Equality Act.
I know I sound like a broken record but it simply isn't sustainable for the Labour party position on this to be "but the Equality Act's clear!" - when what is happening in the courts & in the real world, not to mention statements from @EHRC, show very clearly that it isn't.
Also I *really* wish this scenario would get put to politicians rather than it always being about toilets. Shouldn't the Eq Act be amended so it becomes clear that it's sex discrimination not to provide female employees with female-only changing facilities? If not, why not?
Thread on why Labour’s existing position on gender and sex (“the Equality Act is clear on protections for single-sex spaces” - it isn’t - and “we’re going to make it easier for men to qualify for protections normally reserved for women”) waters down those protections for women.
The Equality Act contains exceptions that allow for provision of single-sex spaces, services and sports. But it doesn’t define sex. The Gender Recognition Act allows males to be treated as tho they were female for most legal purposes.
We simply don’t know if GRA provisions mean a man should be treated as though he were female for Equality Act purposes. It’s unclear & Labour are misleading us when they say the Equality Act doesn’t need clarification on this point. The Supreme Court will eventually rule on this.
V important legal victory for Roz Adams against Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Emp tribunal found ERCC discriminated against her on basis of her gender critical belief & constructively dismissed her. ET on investigation against her: "reminiscent of the works of Franz Kafka." 🔥
The CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis centre is Mridul Wadhwa, a male who identifies as female. In 2021, Wadhwa said female rape survivors who do not want to see a male counsellor who identifies as female should "reframe their trauma."
Yet another legal case that shows how far the capture of gender ideology goes in workplaces that consider themselves "progressive" - & how that ideological capture has led employers to discriminate & constructively dismiss women who believe sex is real & matters in law & society.
Just catching up with today's judgment from the president of the family division of the High Court in relation to a case involving private hormone provider Gender GP. There's so much that's shocking in these few paras.
1. That the court found it so hard to engage a UK endocrinologist they had to go to Australia - telling in itself. 2. Prescription of testosterone to a 15 year old girl diagnosed with autism & anorexia with no physical exam and "extremely poor quality" psychological assessment
3. No record of counselling the girl on the known risks of hormone treatment. 4. Testosterone prescribed at extremely high levels in a "negligent approach" that led to "dangerously high" levels putting J at "risk of sudden death".
Why has the government’s school guidance for gender-questioning children engendered such different reactions? A thread.
There are two views of sex and gender when it comes to children. 1. When a child questions their gender it’s the sign of a fixed trans identity, and disclosure is akin to coming out as gay/lesbian/bisexual.
2. When a child questions their gender it may be a sign of a fixed trans identity that will last into adulthood but evidence suggests it's more likely to resolve itself through puberty & can be associated with things like autism, processing same-sex attraction & childhood trauma.