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
They talked about their personal concerns and experience and their professional experiences; in education, healthcare, universities, law, media and arts and across the public private and voluntary sectors.
There are 744 stories on the site.
They are taking action; talking, writing to MPs, asking questions of organisations and at work and donating to crowdfunders.
But they are scared of consequences about being public - particularly trouble at work.
They feel betrayed by cowardice and capture of established organisations, and they are turning to a constellation of new grassroots organisations.
Apologies that it has taken this long to get the results out - but there are 744 stories - some of them are moving, sad, shocking.
Most of them are angry.
It is done just in time to submit as evidence to the Women & Equalities Select Committee as evidence for their enquiry.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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....