As they have neither joined the debate nor felt their silence worthy of explanation, I can only speculate as to what explains this puzzling lack of engagement.
But if you asked me, I would say the reason for the silence is that those who profess to be active in the field of human rights now have a very narrow view indeed of who is worthy of their protection. This is dangerous. I hope they will wake up.
The saddest of all remains the descent of @ACLU. Once they understood what they were for - now they advocate burning books they don’t like.
My cherished belief in the rationality and sense of my community is revealed as a childish illusion. I now see just how quickly we can fall from grace and into ruin. Let this be the beginning of the end for those who deny history and who offer freedom only to those they like.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So why is it, I hear some of you cry, that we can’t just #bekind and accept that people are who they say they are? Now that I know I may discuss this with the promise of some nice damages if the police record me for doing so, let me explain my perspective.
Because we are not simply being asked to offer dignity and respect to an individual who may be suffering emotional pain. It is being demanded that we deny what is real - to accept there are no differences between men and women.
This is obviously mad. It defies everything we know about male bodies, male sexual responses and male violence. And it leads to offensive absurdities like this. Same newspaper, 2 months later.
"Mr Miller’s challenge is centred ... on the requirement of perception- based recording, and in particular, the requirement in Section 6.3 that a hate incident ... must be recorded as such “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element”.
"One feature of the argument [is] that non-crime hate incidents may be disclosed in certain circumstances, notwithstanding the absence of any underlying objective assessment of the accuracy of such a report; and the chilling effect this may have on freedom of expression".
"ACLU deputy director for transgender justice Chase Strangio said that intervention by child welfare services in LGBT+ families was “another axis upon which to be concerned about the state coming in and deciding what makes a legitimate parent”.
This is an important point isn't it? Does the state 'know best' when a child wishes to become transgender, or is it the parents job to advocate for their child's welfare? Odd how parents being kept out of the loop is applauded by some if parents resist transition.
Ought we not to be focused on one thing and one thing only - the child's welfare? And operate from a rebuttable presumption that the best and most consistent advocates for their children are likely to be their parents?
No that we are allowed to discuss this a little more freely, it’s very interesting to see the themes that have raged on my timeline for two days now, all stemming from a comment that a female victim of rape ought to be allowed a single sex space for counselling.
1. Trans people are the most marginalised and oppressed group. Even if no trans person has been murdered in the last 2 years and most recent quarter statistics for hate crime shows decrease.
But any data that shows no murders or declining rates of hate crime is dismissed as ‘inaccurate’ or because murder victims were actually trans but had no friends or family willing to state this.
A very odd response. Some legal actions succeed. Some fail. I will donate to whatever I like because #lawfare seems to be our only reliable option here.
I am well aware the challenge to the EHRC failed, alongside challenge to prison policy. But Maya Forstater won. @fairplaywomen won. Kate Scottow won. The Court of Appeal currently deciding on #FairCopAppeal.