The report emphasises general training and quality assurance.
Stonewall jumps straight to they are bigots and must be denied employment
The report doesn't mention the word sex. But it does talk a lot about "gender" (by which they mean sex) .
About 25% of asylum seekers are women.
The govt recognises that a lot of women feel more comfortable speaking to another woman
Presumably Nancy would call these women bigots if they objected to having to pretend that someone clearly male is a woman, when they have asked for a female interpreter.
Organisations are saying "gender" when they mean "sex" -- if they don't record sex in their database clearly and have a system to match individuals with officers and interpreters of the same sex when requested they will have a problem.
How can staff trained in Stonewall lingo & using govt records that don't record sex do this job at all?
If they must believe that a person who says they are a woman is a woman, and must say they can't perceive sex, then how they recognise anyone persecuted for being transsexual?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In the summer I asked people to fill in an online survey about why they were concerned about the push to replace sex with gender identity in laws and polices.
More than 700 people completed the survey over the course of a couple of weeks
They were 90 % women, 80% left wing, two-thirds parents, mainly non-religious, almost a quarter LGB
Reed & Castiglia sound just like the kind of Professors you would want at university, and the axioms and their letter sing.
Its amazing just how surprising and unusual it is now to read grown ups using wit, speaking clearly & standing their ground to defend open conversation
Which makes their final recantation all the more heart-breaking (& I read Jane's thread one-by-one as she posted.... i didn't see the ending coming)
I talk to administrators, shop floor workers, police officers trying to defend themselves against these same totalitarian demands
We don't all have the language and space to express ourselves as the Professors, and the arguments on Twitter are not as elegant, but perhaps we don't have the same crushing incentives to fall back into line.
Or perhaps we do and enough of us refuse to anyway.
The important thing is the legal arguments are getting aired - in particular the basis for the 'trans inclusion' argument that males who identify as women have the right to use opposite sex services with women.
Its good & think he is right about the broader drivers. But I don't think he has unpacked the inherent censorious of the "trans rights" agenda. Giving ppl the right to force others to pretend they are the opposite sex is incompatible w free speech. Dissent must be punished
He is also missing the ACLU's turn to irrationality, and betrayal of female athletes on women's sports....