Legal Feminist Profile picture
Jun 5 9 tweets 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
This is the clearest possible bulk harassment of all Oxfam's gender-critical staff: deliberately demonising them with this hate-filled imagery. Our DMs are open. legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/09/don….
"If you want to make this real – well, run the thought experiment, substituting in groups defined by other protected characteristics for “TERF” in “Be less TERF.”  It looks pretty bad, doesn’t it?"
"[Bulk harassment] is exceptionally efficient. You don’t have to bother to harass your gender critical staff individually. Instead... you can harass them all at once – even including those you don’t know about (yet)."
"It's also... bullet-proof. If you try to discriminate against staff members who express their views, there may turn out to have been something in the manner in which they did so that gives you a defence...
But if you harass them at large, irrespective of whether they have said anything at all, there’s no possibility of running a defence of that kind."
Thoughts, #emplaw Twitter?
It's been pointed out that the video comes from @Oxfam, the Twitter account of the international organisation, not based in the UK.

So it might be hard to hold @oxfamgb directly responsible. It remains stark evidence of an unacceptably misogynist organisational culture.
Oxfam needs a gender critical staff network.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Legal Feminist

Legal Feminist Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @legalfeminist

Jun 6
This is a legally illiterate document. Let us count the ways.
"GOQs" went out with the EqA; it's now just "occupational requirement". Detail, but it's not an encouraging start. Image
Occupational requirements don't provide permission to discriminate within a job: they make it lawful to ring-fence some jobs for workers with a particular protected characteristic (including, in the case of gender reassignment, not having that PC).
Read 26 tweets
Apr 15
This is a troubling document from the UN. unaids.org/en/resources/p… Image
From the recitals: Image
from the introduction: Image
Read 6 tweets
Apr 14
Letting men who say they are women use women's facilities makes those facilities mixed for all women: a detriment to a class comprising 51% of the population, for the benefit of a class comprising (at the almost certainly inflated Census figure) less than 0.5%.
Even the classes of women who are unable to use mixed facilities by reason of trauma caused by male violence, or for religious or cultural reasons, are likely to be much larger than the class of trans-identifying men who seek access.
So even assuming a legitimate aim, it is very hard to see how it could ever be proportionate to let the claims of a tiny proportion of men trump the needs of women in this way.
Read 5 tweets
Apr 13
Making a case and building a consensus is how proposals to amend the GRA should have begun. Instead, proponents of reform chose to pretend that there was already a consensus among all right-thinking people, and howl down and punish dissenters as bigots.
That tactic is the explanation for the toxicity of the current debate. It is toxic because those who want to change the law are wholly intolerant of dissent.
It's a tactic that worked well for a while, reaching its high water mark with the astonishing decision of an employment tribunal in Forstater that dissent from gender identity theory was "not worthy of respect in a democratic society".
Read 5 tweets
Mar 16
A short explainer of the recusal decisions in the Higgs v Farmor's School case.
Mrs Higgs, a school administrator, was sacked after someone complained about some Facebook posts she had made expressing anxiety - from a broadly gender-critical perspective - about teaching on the subject of gender in schools.
She complained to an employment tribunal of discrimination. Her complaint was dismissed, and she appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Read 13 tweets
Mar 16
The President of the EAT has today - for the second time in the same case - had to recuse a wing member for apparent bias.
In July, it will be recalled, Edward Lord, a prominent campaigner on the sex denialist side of the gender debate, had to be recused from the panel for apparent bias.
That was July 2022. The judgment set out how the panel for this particular case had come to be assembled:
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(