Is it legal to include/exclude transgender women from swimming in a women-only pond in Hampstead? (thread) /1https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48380940 …
-
-
Quite. The sex-based rights and protections of women are under unprecedented threat. Being neutral is not an option.
-
Principled neutrality by an org I think can be a decent position: i.e. holding open the space for debate. This is what Mumsnet has done. Just imagine how this debate would have been different if other orgs had had the integrity & courage to do this...
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I have recently stopped regarding
@rightsinfo as a go-to, objective source of accessible human rights information because it appears to regard the explaining of human rights law (inc the balancing of different rights in conflict) as secondary to promoting "woke" causes -
Yes, they appear to have chosen a side on the trans v female rights debate & to be endorsing the tools of an oppressive regime to lobby for it: no-platform, no-debate. The Chair & CEO are male. Could this be a coincidence?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And surely the board would do best to take legal advice before making a decision to lobby for a change in the law?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How is anything “gender critical” an “expert view”? Don’t answer that, it’s obviously rhetorical given the “gender critical” stance is science denial and prejudice. If a stance is harmful it would seem prudent to “no platform” it if the party which holds such stance is knowingly
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.