The key problem here - and with other similar EDI initiatives - is the false positioning of a level playing field. There can be no level playing field when a majority group meets to discuss the rights of a minority group. Rather, the uneven terrain becomes bumpier still.
Any productive EDI initiative needs to begin from the premise and with the intention that inclusion is the goal not the question.
If an organisation seriously wants to foster inclusion of a minority group, they do not allow majority members to ‘consider’ the position of minority members. They listen very hard to the latter and elect them to positions of leadership and they shut the former up.
Or, they stop pretending and admit that the remit of their membership is ideologically limited.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
IMPORTANT The Equality and Human Rights Commission. has opened a public consultation to run until the end of October. See link above. Please fill in the survey. Points to stress 👇equalityhumanrights.com/our-work/draft…
One of their key themes is “Justice and the Balance of Rights” with specific reference to sex and gender - see below
1Legal clarity around issues where there may be tension between the rights of two or more groups, for example, in relation to sex and gender or matters of religion or belief.
5 years ago, in relation to the views of supporters of high profile GC feminists, I asked ‘can a movement be judged by its followers?’ Little did I know the very worst was yet to come. It astonishes me that the supposedly liberal GCs aren’t aghast at what they are part of.
The people who regularly come into my mentions in support of GC beliefs are the very worst of humanity
And if you don’t publicly speak out against these ultra sexist, homophobic and racist people who support your views, any hand ringing you might do in private is utterly worthless
This week the 'silencing' of Kathleen Stock reached extraordinary levels as Stock told her 'story' in a @BBCWomansHour 'exclusive', in a full length article in the @Telegraph and to @bindelj in a 50 minute video interview for @unherd This was the week of Kathleen getting revenge
There is, as @graceelavery has noted, a shift of emphasis in the latest narrative of events leading to Stock's *decision* to resign from her post at Sussex. Student protests become 'high jinks' and it is the academic 'enablers' who are blamed for Stock *choosing* to leave her job
While students still get a hard ride for the crimes of putting up posters and handing out flyers on campus, wearing masks on a demo during a pandemic, and lighting a flare (in 'trans colours' no less), Stock moved this week to hold the 'academic enablers' to account
Very soon the current movement against the rights of trans people will be viewed in exactly the same way as most people see the movements against minoritized people of the past.
That the advancement of rights for a disadvantaged group was catastrophised as an impending cut back on the rights of a privileged group will be seen with the distaste that most people view these same arguments of the past re race, class and sexuality.
The binary model of gender will be taught alongside its sexological and colonial counterparts, those of essentialist models of race and sexuality. Sex as existing on a spectrum will be a given within the mainstream scientific community.
One of the aspects of GC politicking that is particularly disgraceful is their collaboration with men who have no history with feminist movements and no interest in, or engagement with, feminist political thought.
Indeed, these are largely men who, in the best case scenario, have no wider involvement at all with social justice movements or, in the worst-though frequent- case scenario, stand against the rights of minoritized groups. Men on the far right.
Moreover, GC ‘feminists’ do not only join forces with these men, they actively utilise them as bully boys to attack one of the most vulnerable groups of women in society. Apparently this is done in the name of feminism.
On Wednesday 3 cis women gave evidence to the @Commonswomequ select committee on #GRA reform. These panellists spent the majority of their allocated time arguing that proposed reform has the potential to harm cis women due to the presence of trans women in ‘women’s’ spaces
Yet anyone who has knowledge about the issues at stake knows that changes proposed to the GRA would have absolutely no impact here. There is no connection as the Equality Act, by recognising trans women as women, ensures their right to women’s spaces such as toilets
The arguments presented at @Commonswomequ by these panellists were thus completely irrelevant- they might as well have been arguing that changes to the GRA would lead to a rise in the price of bread - and should have been told so by the committee Chair.