Thread by @SVPhillimore

She signed this declaration - as did I. It does not call for ‘trans people to be mandated out of society’. It calls for recognition of the rights of women and for protection of freedom of speech and of children against medical transition. Read it here

womensdeclaration.com/en/

https://twitter.com/bluemouseeeek/status/1447618427665911808

Nor did the @ALLIANCELGB ever make that assertion. There is never any proof offered for this. It’s just something shocking that’s easy to say. But there is widespread and reasonable concern about just what is meant to be included in the ‘Q+’.

Because we are told that this movement is about ‘acceptance without exception’ ‘I am what I say I am’ and that ‘inclusion’ trumps all, even fairness and safety.

If there are certain paraphilias that Stonewall et al agrees should not come under this umbrella - for example, paedophilia - then it would be helpful to make this clear. Because otherwise I am entitled to be worried about what exactly is sheltered under the ‘Q+’ umbrella.

By all means disagree with me, challenge me, present arguments to show my suspicions are unfounded or unfair. But to use threats, violence or intimidation to attempt to silence me is a potential criminal offence and you will not get to claim otherwise.

Of course I am now blocked by the person who made these untrue and inflammatory assertions. Here is the tweet again if you missed it or are now blocked.

If this person is alleging that women like me put trans people at risk of actual physical harm by expressing views about sex and gender then he/she/they need to make a rather clearer link.

In the way for example that Professor Stock can now draw a direct line between these kind of lies and her inability to safely attend her own place of work.