Medics: feel free to express your concerns about the impact of sex denialism/gender identity beliefs in good patient care.

Lawyers: feel free to express reservations about Stonewall’s misrepresentation of equality law.

Women at work: feel free to object to being made to
share private spaces with men who think they should be treated “like women.”
Social workers: feel free to oppose Mermaids’ deleterious impact on child safeguarding.

Academics: go to town on dismantling the arguments mandated as the only option by sex-deniers.
I’ll think of other examples later.

Point is: the Employment Appeal Tribunal has just confirmed that knowing sex is real, and that it matters, are perfectly lawful, mainstream, respectable positions. If you express them, and are sacked for it, that’s unlawful discrimination.
Ergo your employers had better ensure that you are enabled to state those views. Persecuting you for them is *against the law.*

And because it was the EAT, that’s binding on them.
Please let’s have amnesty of sorts now: loads of people with pent-up objections, who have been self-censoring, you can afford to take the risk of speaking up. It’ll make you feel a lot better, & will help to shift the culture back towards material reality, for the benefit of all.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Wild Woman Writing Club

Wild Woman Writing Club Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @wwwritingclub

11 Jun
The Times view on the Maya Forstater verdict: Right to Think | Comment | The Times thetimes.co.uk/article/the-ti…
“In a liberal society, observed John Stuart Mill, the law does not exist to force us into conformity, but to protect us from actual harm.”
“Development two years ago after she was said to have invoked “offensive and exclusionary” language on social media. Ms Forstater, who had tweeted comments such as “woman means adult human female.””
Read 5 tweets
10 Jun
😂 Entertain thyselves: It's important to emphasise that the ruling does NOT give Maya Forstater the right to . . . | Mumsnet mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_ri…
“It's important to emphasise that the ruling does NOT give Maya Forstater the right to:

—finish up the last of the toilet paper without replacing it

—break into a museum and draw moustaches on all portraits

—redecorate your house if she doesn't like your wallpaper”
“It's always important to emphasise what [-women-] Maya must not be allowed to say or do.”
Read 8 tweets
10 Jun
This TRA trope that women speaking “causes harm to trans people” is such a great stick to beat women with, isn’t it? If even using the correct sex pronoun for a man is deemed to cause him harm, is our freedom of belief more than notional? bbc.com/news/uk-574265…
“Maya Forstater won her case because the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that her belief that biological sex is real, important and immutable met the legal test of a genuine and important philosophical position that is protected under the UK's equality laws.”
“The test for such a protection was that her belief touched on an important part of human life, would be accepted by others and - this is the important bit - could not be shown to be a direct attempt to harm others.”
Read 15 tweets
10 Jun
Thank this woman and her barrister Anya Palmer👇🏻
And give her organisation any money you don’t need, please 👇🏻

Because, of course, when she wins one battle she levels up.

sex-matters.org/take-action/do…
And Terf it up at work today, in celebration 😉
Read 4 tweets
10 Jun
So. Will the EAT kick Maya’s claim upstairs—despite the interventions of EHRC & Index on Censorship—so they have to wrestle with whether or not we are permitted to express a basic understanding of biology & defence of women’s rights at work? Or will they put us out of our misery?
We find out later this morning.

Anything is possible. Having sat through the first hearing, & listened to the remarkable arguments of the respondent employer, I was so confident that her beliefs, as expressed, would be protected.

What a shock that decision was. A mortal shock
A world-upside-down kind of shock.

One which left us with no option but to fight to defend our right to free expression, our right to state facts which pull at the threads of a socially harmful legal fiction, our rights as women.
Read 16 tweets
9 Jun
All rapists are male, regardless of gender. That it takes an active campaign to assert this basic truth is a measure of how transgender ideology has captured the way we think, speak & administer justice. thetimes.co.uk/article/all-ra…
“Recording sex accurately matters here for trust in statistics, affecting research & policy development. Trust in the media is a further issue. Press reports take their lead from the police and courts. Very few cases would need to be recorded and reported as female rather...”
“...than male to suggest misleadingly that patterns of female offending were changing.

The Scottish government has said it sees no role for itself in ensuring accurate data on sex in such cases. Recent proposals from its chief statistician indeed suggest it favours treating...”
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(