I bet none of them have spent the time considering the implications of the adoption of gender ideology on women & children's human rights that @jk_rowling has
Yesterday a young staff member of @RFKHumanRights was on here saying how JKR's statements "go against everything we stand for as an organisation, saying how it was "the youth" that had brought it up and that the board had been slow to move.
We got into conversation when I asked for their reasoning about whether there was any legitimate conflict of rights.
I got back the 13 word mantra "Trans women are women etc.. ....analysis done!"
He also called me a TERF and told me to "sit down dear"
(He later privately apologised for "TERF" after I explained that it is a slur associated with threats of violence against women)
We talked, and he said such things as "sex is assigned at birth" and "gender is a social construct"
I've blanked his name out because he has put his account on private, and because this isn't really about this one young staff member's lack of argument.
It is about the organisation that says #speaktruthtopower condemning JKR for speaking up for women's rights.
Kerry Kennedy's statement suggests that the senior leadership and trustees @RFKHumanRights have not engaged with the issues but have been strong armed into a position.
I bet most of the people on the board are in some agreement with JKR's nuanced and compassionate view about sex and gender identity.
Serious people, serious organisations need to step up, do their job, make space for serious debate.
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.