From the Easy Reading version of the Welsh LGBTQ+ Action Plan consultation
- it is so unsafe to tell people they cannot trust their own eyes about who is a man and who is a woman.
Queer means..... ? (I still don't know)
And as for the plus...?
Here is the not easy reading version - it still doesn't make clear why people "wanting to reject specific labels" should need to be the business of the state.
The plus can be "any number of other identities"...
Why is this a "community of people"?
People who are happy to clearly describe themselves as gay or lesbian, and people who reject that label and are not in same-sex relationships... in what way are they a community??
Simples?
This is one of their priorities....
(who does this?)
Who could be against people "living a full life?"
No "gender" is not a protected characteristic
Not the definition of hate crime
Hurtful comments are not hate crimes
The whole thing feels incoherent, exploitative and leading
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Prof Whittle appears to be arguing individuals shouldn't be able to held liable for sexual harassment if their inappropriate behaviour was sanctioned by their employer.
I gave evidence in the Sandie Peggie case because the hospital board & male Dr refused to accept as findings of fact that that men are more likely to commit violent & sexual crimes, that men are more dangerous to women, so women are more heavily impacted by men in their spaces than vice versa.
You can read my witness statement here.
These are the facts it attests to.
You don't need a degree of any sort to understand these facts.
I've written to @stonewalluk CEO Simon Blake applauding his leadership in discarding Stonewall's previous extreme and divisive definition of "transphobia".
And explaining the damage that it did.
It's not good enough to quietly back away from it after doubling down for so long