Akua Reindorf said @Uni_of_Essex should consider its relationship with Stonewall because "this relationship appears to have given University members the impression that gender critical academics can legitimately be excluded from the institution"
The report includes an open letter from the LGBTQ forum which demonstrates clearly what this impression looks like
Reindorf reminded the University of its responsibilities under the law.
The VC has apologises *for publishing the report* because it caused the people who think that GC academics should be excluded have hurt feelings.
The University doubled down on its commitment to Stonewall and apologised to the LGBTQ Forum
This is utterly chilling
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Reindorf Review pointed to a culture of fear for gender critical staff
Things that the VC has apologised for:
- Anyone who felt excluded from or affected by the process of contributing to the Review
- The manner in which the Report
was released
- the timing of the release
- that the Report and the actions agreed have required considerable time from students to address the impact on them and on other students and especially students in leadership roles
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 ?
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