We want to remove “gender reassignment” from the Equality Act because, under it, an autogynephilic man successfully argued he had a right to override the limited consent for women’s intimate care being only female
In other words, his perversion & predation were protected acts
In other words, his perversion & predation were protected acts
https://twitter.com/AudreySuffolk/status/1636111395988152320
How unfortunate
Our analysis that existing protected characteristics cover people in genuine need of discrimination protection sounds simple because it cuts through the gender fog.
Our analysis that existing protected characteristics cover people in genuine need of discrimination protection sounds simple because it cuts through the gender fog.
https://twitter.com/AlessandraAster/status/1636115993654095875
Check out the case summary here, reading "man" wherever obfuscatory gender ideologue terms are used to lessen the impact of what happened
sex-matters.org/posts/case-law…
sex-matters.org/posts/case-law…
Another case summary here. What this lower tribunal case tells us is how easy it is for manipulative AGPs to pull the wool over employment judges' eyes by sleight of language...
legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/25/my-…
legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/25/my-…
Love the strikethroughs for clarity in this piece 🔥👍
"A month before he underwent gender reassignment surgery, Fortnum was told he was no longer to provide intimate personal care for DL, because DL's mother had expressed a wish that only female members of staff should attend to her daughter’s intimate care."
"Fortnum was upset and offended, and sued the Council for discrimination, apparently limiting herself himself to a complaint of discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment."
"Gender reassignment" in the Equality Act - a license for predators to perv on disabled girls.
"Gender reassignment" in the Equality Act - a license for predators to perv on disabled girls.
And I am *confident* 😬👀 that GC campaigners are not knowingly in favour of a strand of equality law that enables such appalling judgments that violate the rights of women & girls?
*😬🤔👀
*😬🤔👀
Because if they are genuinely in favour of retaining GR in the EA 2010, they're no different to the tribunal judge who sagely concluded that Fortnum
"took offence &, rightly, at being treated differently by reason of gender reassignment from a natural born woman"
See it?
"took offence &, rightly, at being treated differently by reason of gender reassignment from a natural born woman"
See it?
The more you think about it, the more absurd it seems—this notion that individual rights to freedom from discrimination license men to do whatever they want, regardless of other laws designed to impose reasonable limits on their presumptive freedoms
European & national lawmakers made a mistake
They got high on their own supply of easy “virtue”
Time to get back to reality
They got high on their own supply of easy “virtue”
Time to get back to reality
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
