Read on Twitter
A bit of #NoDebate history.
In 2018 @Docstockk wrote this calm clear article about self ID which was published by the @ConversationUK (alongside an article with the counter-view)
theconversation.com/why-self-ident…
In 2018 @Docstockk wrote this calm clear article about self ID which was published by the @ConversationUK (alongside an article with the counter-view)
theconversation.com/why-self-ident…
I thought the article was very good in setting out the issues, and when @CGDev HR guy Luke contacted me about my tweets I sent him a link to it to explain that this is a serious policy question in the UK. 
A bunch of academics were angry and disappointed with the Converation that they had published Kathleen's article and they wrote an open letter.
The Conversation held its ground
The Conversation held its ground
In December 2018 I tweeted about the letter in a long thread highlighting how good it was to see @ForWomenScot presenting to the Scottish Parliament and demanding that politicians engage with the issue
https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1073164780645568512
When I was being investigated by CGD they commissioned DEI consultants who condemned me *because* I had retweeted the letter
They said they agreed with all the criticisms of Kathleen Stock and so my views were not legitimate.
CGD agreed and spent a lot of money losing in court
They said they agreed with all the criticisms of Kathleen Stock and so my views were not legitimate.
CGD agreed and spent a lot of money losing in court
So here we are its 2023.
Kathleen Stock features in a very good documentary shown on @Channel4 which makes all the same points as the 2018 article
channel4.com/programmes/gen…
Kathleen Stock features in a very good documentary shown on @Channel4 which makes all the same points as the 2018 article
channel4.com/programmes/gen…
But if you share it publicly and (god forbid!) say that you agree with Kathleen people will still try to come after your job.
At least now you can point at the Forstater judgment and they may back off, but it is scary, and many people are too vulnerable
sex-matters.org/posts/freedom-…
At least now you can point at the Forstater judgment and they may back off, but it is scary, and many people are too vulnerable
sex-matters.org/posts/freedom-…
What would help would be if orgs and their leaders would stand up for their mission & principles (as The Conversation did in 2018) and refuse to be used by the bullies.
But moral leadership is thin on the ground.
People who should stand up have been cowering for too long.
But moral leadership is thin on the ground.
People who should stand up have been cowering for too long.
So what is needed now is to clarify the law.
The definition of sex matters particularly for the public sector equality duty.
If "transwomen are women" in the EqA then women will continue to be terrorised.
sex-matters.org/equality-act-d…
The definition of sex matters particularly for the public sector equality duty.
If "transwomen are women" in the EqA then women will continue to be terrorised.
sex-matters.org/equality-act-d…
But if women are a group that shld not be discriminated against on the basis of our sex, & public bodies *have to* take this into account then we can have sane, sensible, evidence-based conversations about policies.
Sex matters in life & law - it shouldn't take courage to say so
Sex matters in life & law - it shouldn't take courage to say so
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
