I wonder if @fawcettsociety is going to do a tweet welcoming this judgment which is in line with their position: "Trans women should, subject to an appropriate and effective risk assessment, be treated as women
within the prison system"
"... which already deals with women who are a risk to other women. It is clearly unacceptable to keep trans women in the mainstream male estate".
Why is it unacceptable for these "women" to be in the male estate ?
A judge weighed up women's safety against the feelings of convicted male sex offenders and said the sex offenders feelings win.
And Fawcett's position is that the judge is right and that women who have been standing up to this are just mean....can't we do more comedy and accessories?
This is institutionalised misogyny for which Fawcett is a cheerleader.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What is emerging (as with AEA v EHRC) is that policies that says people *must* treat colleagues as if they believe they are the opposite sex, on demand and at all times is unlikely to be lawful
The consensus that seems to be emerging here is that in areas of work & working life where sex matters it cannot be harassment to refer to a person's sex.
So employers need to consider where sex matters & how upset can be reasonably avoided (eg. by providing unisex alternatives)
They need to have reality based conversations w employees e.g. xxx prefers to be called "she", you are asked to do that as a courtesy (or at least not use "he") but we will not interpret this as a statement of belief that they have changed sex or consent to share facilities.
New Online Safety Bill will be a disaster for freedom of speech
It is based on the concept of "Duty of Care": proactive censorship of entirely legal content on the basis of potential psychological harms.
The Duty of Care Framework comes from a consortium of "be kind" NGOs
Also these ones.....
As @IndexCensorship warn "The proponents of the draft Online Safety Bill have created a new construct, the Duty of Care, that bypasses both Parliament and the Courts, in order to create a new framework for private censorship."
Intro: Given todays topic some people will find the language distressing
Robin is the go to lawyer at Old Square Chambers on transgender matters and has taken over the Bloomberg chapter on employment law on trans matters
Robin: MF worked as a consultant for CGD. Ms Forstater has firm views about trans matters - that transwomen are men, that sex is immutable and that TW should not be allowed access to certain women's spaces
The funders promoting the fashionable idea that "male" and "female" no longer matter are now playing the word game on the difference between rich and poor countries.
You are paid millions. You are respected. You have OBEs.
Your orgs are systematically beating down on women w little power.
Freelancers, artists, early career, returners to work, single mothers, women in refuges. Those who cannot afford to speak up or most easily disposable.
Yes the bullies are in your organisations.
They are running your D&I function. They are in your affinity groups. You are paying them to lobby you.