Akua Reindorf KC Profile picture
May 23 7 tweets 2 min read Read on X
Long 🧵
1 Reading Billy Bragg comparing the @EHRC Code with Thatcher & section 28 is baffling. In the 80s I was a left wing feminist teenager – demonstrating against s.28, implacably anti-Thatcher, visiting Greenham Common, the whole scene – & I came out as a lesbian in the 90s…
2 Section 28 wasn’t about the LGBTQ+ community. It was about same-sex attracted people. It was an attempt to prevent the normalisation of our private & family lives. At the time lesbians’ kids were being removed by the state & lesbians were routinely violently attacked by men...
3 The “joke” that lesbians hadn’t met the right dick yet was prevalent. Feminists were mocked as lentil-eating dungaree-wearing harpies. But then, in the new century, there was a seismic change in social & civic life for LGB people and the perception of feminism…
4 While Bragg was singing dreary songs, feminist lesbian heroes like @bindelj & many others had fought to make it possible for others like me to love women & raise children without fear of government, the law or straight men. Suddenly feminism was no longer a dirty word…
@bindelj 5 Then, bizarrely, in around 2015 our own organisations turned against us. They started to pretend that men could be women, and it broke everything. My own moment of revelation was being told that I was a bigot because I said I wouldn’t have sex with “a woman with a penis”…
@bindelj 6 Looking back to the 80s, it’s impossible to imagine I’d have been anything but proud if I’d known then that 40yrs on I’d work on guidance that articulates women’s rights to safety, dignity & privacy away from men & lesbians’ right to gather together without heterosexual males…
@bindelj 7 I’ll never not find it mystifying that people like Bragg attempt to recharacterise those rights as politically objectionable. Ultimately the only part of this screenshot I can recommend are the last two words. Image

• • •

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

Keep Current with Akua Reindorf KC

Akua Reindorf KC 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 @akuareindorf

May 21
🧵 (reposted) on the only big change to the @EHRC Code of Practice made at the behest of @bphillipson: the new paras 12.74 and 12.75 on multi protected characteristic associations... Image
1 This is about *associations* only. It’s a legal interpretation allowing membership of an association to be restricted to those who have either one or the other of two (or more) protected characteristics…
2 The Equality Act on its face doesn’t allow this mix & match

It only allows an association to be restricted to people who all share one protected characteristic (eg “women only) or who *all* share more than one PC (eg “disabled women only”)…
Read 9 tweets
May 18
@rachelsfletcher @tarteArcEnCiel @Bird_OnA_Wire @BiologyStupid @SteveChalke Honestly, this conversation is like 2021.
Here are the reasons we don't want trans-identified men to use women's single sex facilities:
1) They're men. That's actually enough, but there's more.
2) They're not a sacred caste. They sexually offend at a higher rate than other men../
@rachelsfletcher @tarteArcEnCiel @Bird_OnA_Wire @BiologyStupid @SteveChalke 3) Even if they were a sacred caste of harmless men, we can't tell them apart from other men, so we'd have to let all men in.
4) They're not at as much risk of injury from men as we are, because they're physically male.../
@rachelsfletcher @tarteArcEnCiel @Bird_OnA_Wire @BiologyStupid @SteveChalke 5) There is no evidence that they'd be at particular risk of violence if they used the men's.
6) Even if they were at risk of violence if they used the men's, that's not women's problem. Lots of men are at risk in men's facilities: young men, disabled men, gay men, old men etc../
Read 4 tweets
Apr 29
1/ There are 3 kinds of relevant harassment

For all 3, A engages in unwanted conduct which violates B’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B (if not deliberate, it must be reasonable for B to experience it that way)..
2/ The first kind of harassment is where the conduct is "related to" sex. This is broad. Eg:

- telling sexist jokes

- putting sexually explicit posters up

- saying “hiya, big tits” to a woman

- calling a man “a bald c*nt*” (even though some women are also bald)...
3/ The second kind of harassment is where the conduct is “of a sexual nature”. Eg:

- sexual touching

- physical “horseplay”

- sexual comments directed at B

In addition to being liable for this kind of harassment, employers have a duty to prevent it…
Read 7 tweets
Apr 27
1/ The @EHRC Code of Practice

- isn’t law

- is guidance which courts can consider but don’t have to follow

- states basic principles for services, associations & those exercising public functions

- isn't bespoke advice for each such organisation

- doesn’t apply to workplaces
2/ “Waiting for the Code of Practice”

- isn’t a defence to acting unlawfully

- is likely to lead to disappointment, b/c it’s not bespoke advice

- is pointless & likely counterproductive for employers, b/c the law for workplaces is very different to that for services etc
3/ Service providers, associations, those exercising public functions and employers should

- read the Supreme Court judgment in @ForWomenScot & look at reliable legal summaries

- get reliable specialist legal advice if still unsure

- act lawfully now
Read 6 tweets
Apr 16
🧵
1 I’m sure @NadiaWhittomeMP will be correcting the Parliamentary record at her earliest opportunity and withdrawing her statement that the @EHRC interim update went “far beyond even the Supreme Court ruling”. Swift J rejected that argument in R (GLP) v EHRC [2026] ⤵️
2 A few other points:

“The SC had the unenviable job of attempting to interpret the will of Parliament”: this is a metaphor for “the meaning of the statutory words with regard to their context & the purpose of the legislation”, not "what MPs thought when they passed it" ⤵️
3 It’s therefore irrelevant which Party was in government at the time and what their preferences were.

Nonetheless, it’s good to see that @NadiaWhittomeMP has recognised that the only way around the Supreme Court judgment for transactivists is legislative change ⤵️
Read 7 tweets
Apr 13
🧵

A reminder that:

The SC judgment wasn’t about whether trans people in general should be treated as the opposite sex under the Equality Act

*It was already known that they should not*

/1
The judgment was *only* about whether the c.10k trans people with Gender Recognition Certificates should be treated as the opposite sex under the Equality Act

*The Supreme Court decided that they should not*

/2
Any service already operating lawfully should have had no difficulty in adapting to the SC judgment

But vast numbers of services and employers were already acting unlawfully because lobby groups like @stonewalluk told them to. And now they can't work out how to get out of it

/3
Read 4 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!

:(