Abstract
A response to Phoenix Andrews’ article in the summer issue of Index on Censorship
It is a shocking thing to read about yourself. And obviously, no I have not threatened anybody.
What I did was express opposition, in tweets and a blogpost to the idea of the government allowing people to change sex via “gender self-identification”. I made statements such as:
“What I am so surprised at is that smart people who I admire, who are absolutely pro-science in other areas, and champion human rights and women’s rights are tying themselves in knots to avoid saying the truth that men cannot change into women (because that might hurt men’s feelings).”
For this I lost my job at an international development think-tank.
The first judge who heard my discrimination case thought that was as it should be; my beliefs he said are “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”.
In their article in Index on Censorship, Andrews agrees.
It is an extraordinarily authoritarian view to hold.
But it is increasingly ordinary in the HR departments and Equality and Diversity units of major corporations, charities, public sector bodies and universities. Many are members of the Stonewall Diversity Champion Scheme in which they pledge allegiance to the idea of gender identity. They reward and punish staff and influence public policy, public debate and law enforcement.
So the idea that a police officer might turn up at my door at the behest of a trans rights activist, for saying that I do not believe a person with a penis is a woman, is not so far-fetched.
The police turned up at Harry Miller’s workplace to “check his thinking”. Miranda Yardley, a transsexual, was prosecuted for a transgender hate crime after a complainant, who worked for the charity Mermaids which promotes transitioning children alleged harassment for tweeting information already in the public domain. Kellie-Jay Keen was reported to police after she referred to Mermaids’ CEO Susie Green taking her son to Thailand at the age of 16 to be castrated and have his penis fashioned into a simulation of a vagina. Linda Bellos OBE was prosecuted for using threatening language, for saying she would use self-defence if faced by attacks by trans rights activists. Kate Scottow was prosecuted after unkindly tweeting that a particular trans identifying man was a “pig in a wig”. She was arrested and held in a cell for seven hours, her computer and phone were impounded for months.
They all fought back and won. The CPS dropped the case against Linda Bellos, but not before the 70-year-old had to attend court three times. Kate Scottow’s conviction for “causing annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety” was eventually overturned almost two years after her arrest. Harry Miller took Humberside Police to court and won.
Most people do not end up in court but feel this chilling effect via their workplace or profession.
Do they dare resist pressure to announce their pronouns? Can they say they don’t think men should be in women’s prisons or sports? What if their job involves safeguarding children, will they pretend that words can change a person’s sex?
Since I launched my case hundreds of people have contacted me to say they are terrified at work, or have been bullied and harassed for being gender critical. They tell of having to defend their social media posts, facing complaints for signing letters to newspapers about academic freedom, or for saying that JK Rowling is not transphobic. They have been no platformed, blackballed and sidelined. Journalists have pronouns changed after they submit their copy, researchers find projects rejected on vague suspicions of transphobia. Those in the public domain such as the columnist Suzanne Moore, the academics Kathleen Stock, Selina Todd and Jo Phoenix and the artists Rachel Ara and Jess de Wahl are just the tip of the iceberg.
Since I won my case hundreds of people have contacted me to tell me they now feel braver.
Others such as the barrister Allison Bailey, the Girl Guide leader Katie Alcock and the therapist James Esses are taking discrimination cases to court.
If anyone considers my words constitute criminal activity, they should be aware that Justice Julian Knowles said of the complainant who reported Harry Miller’s tweets her outrage was “at times, at the outer margins of rationality.”
To make matters worse, my views on the response to the Andrews article are now being censored.
After the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Alliance tweeted a criticism of the article, Andrews reported being under attack and facing a “pile-on”. Almost a hundred academics, journalists and others responded with tweeted messages of solidarity for Andrews.
I did not consider that a pile-on was happening and I documented this in a blog post which I published on Medium.
My blog posts featured “receipts”: screenshots of the public tweets and responses, and links to Twitter searches showing that there was no “pile-on”.
Then I received an email from Medium saying my post (and another in relation to a separate issue) were under investigation.
Maya Forstater won her appeal at the Employment Appeal Tribunal after losing her job for saying people cannot change their biological sex
CREDIT: Barney Cokeliss
I was asked to “remove all personally identifying information”. Of course I didn’t. How could I respond to Andrews’ article without naming them?
A little later I received a second email. The investigation was complete. My posts were removed.
“Site policies prohibit posts that name specific private individuals for the purpose of targeted harassment or shaming, especially where doing so is likely to incite or foster further harassment, threats, and violence.”
I am now left arguing with the algorithmic censors that I did not name Andrews to harass or shame them, nor to incite “further harassment, threats and violence”, but in order to make sense of my response to their claims about me and the response to my article.