You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
As @legalfeminist reported the argument being made is that gender critical belief does not deserve these human rights protections because it is dangerous & humiliating, and its expression should be suppressed for the protection and freedom of transwomenhttps://twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1196747803474747393 …
Suppressing freedom of expression in a democracy is a big deal. The judgments in our two cases will have significant ramifications one way or another - which ought to make them interesting whether you agree w the gender critical view or with "Transwomen are women, get over it"
What is notable is many orgs that would normally take an interest in these kinds of Qs are not saying *anything* at all about the fact that these cases are happening @libertyhq @amnestyUK @article19org @fawcettsociety @whywomen @EqualRights @rights_info (even @stonewalluk!)
With the honourable exceptions of @jodieginsberg @IndexCensorship and @FiLiA_charity I have not seen any human rights organisations or leaders commenting (apologies if I have missed any) or acknowledging or explaining the issues in these cases.
Which is weird. Because as the judge in Harry's case said if someone was using derogatory racist terms that would be clear. Everyone would see it. And cases questioning where to draw the freedom of expression line would attract debate and comment.
Summary: legal cases are arguing that fundamental human rights & the ability to speak the truth should be restricted to protect the rights & dignity of people who identify as trans.
And human rights orgs think think it best not to say anything at all about this.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
