Read on Twitter
THREAD - The Rise of Gender Identity and the Fall of Sex
Last year, the @cityoflondon held a consultation about "gender identity". It was a (not in the slightest) veil attempt to replace sex by "gender identity"
The Sponsor was one @edwardlord
Some red flags were raised 1/
Last year, the @cityoflondon held a consultation about "gender identity". It was a (not in the slightest) veil attempt to replace sex by "gender identity"
The Sponsor was one @edwardlord
Some red flags were raised 1/
Preamble
After the adoption of a new gender identity policy by the City of London I decided to analyze the whole process and found some serious issues including breaches of the City of London Code of Conduct and breaches of the Public sector equality duty and EA2010 2/
After the adoption of a new gender identity policy by the City of London I decided to analyze the whole process and found some serious issues including breaches of the City of London Code of Conduct and breaches of the Public sector equality duty and EA2010 2/
Preamble
The City of London is required to upheld what is outlined by the EA2010 as per the Public Sector Equality Duty (s. 149 of the EA2010.)
As it is well known, under the EA2010, sex and gender reassignment are both protected characteristics. Gender Identity is not.
3/
The City of London is required to upheld what is outlined by the EA2010 as per the Public Sector Equality Duty (s. 149 of the EA2010.)
As it is well known, under the EA2010, sex and gender reassignment are both protected characteristics. Gender Identity is not.
3/
Preamble
It was with surprise that we saw the City of London promoting a consultation designed to assist the City Corporation to develop an "overarching Gender Identity Policy" to "discharge its duties under the EA2010".
4/
It was with surprise that we saw the City of London promoting a consultation designed to assist the City Corporation to develop an "overarching Gender Identity Policy" to "discharge its duties under the EA2010".
4/
Preamble
Surprisingly, City of London has no reference to the definition of "Gender Identity" on their web-site yet they claim that "Gender Identity has relevance and importance".
5/
Surprisingly, City of London has no reference to the definition of "Gender Identity" on their web-site yet they claim that "Gender Identity has relevance and importance".
5/
Preamble
We noticed the lack of the definition on the consultation´s survey, the report presented to the Establishment Committee, on the final report with the results, on the Equality Analysis Template and even on the GENDER IDENTITY POLICY.
NO DEFINITION! Red flag!!
6/
We noticed the lack of the definition on the consultation´s survey, the report presented to the Establishment Committee, on the final report with the results, on the Equality Analysis Template and even on the GENDER IDENTITY POLICY.
NO DEFINITION! Red flag!!
6/
Preamble
One can raise the question about the true intentions of Mr. Lord (and City of London) to promote such consultation without even providing the definition of "Gender Identity".
I will now outline all the problems I found regarding the consultation process
7/
One can raise the question about the true intentions of Mr. Lord (and City of London) to promote such consultation without even providing the definition of "Gender Identity".
I will now outline all the problems I found regarding the consultation process
7/
1.On the matter of form
1.1 - From my diligencies, I found out that the survey was not widely promoted besides on twitter.
Why was that @edwardlord / @cityoflondon ?
8/
1.1 - From my diligencies, I found out that the survey was not widely promoted besides on twitter.
Why was that @edwardlord / @cityoflondon ?
8/
1.On the matter of form
1.2 - Despite the City of London´s statement, there was no attempt to involve directly the most important stakeholders on the consultation due to the lack of promotion and on account of the time period chosen (middle of summer) and only for 51 days
9/
1.2 - Despite the City of London´s statement, there was no attempt to involve directly the most important stakeholders on the consultation due to the lack of promotion and on account of the time period chosen (middle of summer) and only for 51 days
9/
1.On the matter of form
1.2 - According to a FOI request, we know the City did not make any external consultation. Only the survey.
Knowing the implications of such survey on many stakeholders (e.g. Schools), why did the City decide to not consult with them directly?
10/
1.2 - According to a FOI request, we know the City did not make any external consultation. Only the survey.
Knowing the implications of such survey on many stakeholders (e.g. Schools), why did the City decide to not consult with them directly?
10/
1.On the matter of form
1.3 - Insufficient Equality Analysis to fully understand the potential negative impacts
Religion: Ignores the potential impact in some religious communities regarding sex-based spaces. Instead remarks “Opportunities GI Policy creates for dialogue”
11/
1.3 - Insufficient Equality Analysis to fully understand the potential negative impacts
Religion: Ignores the potential impact in some religious communities regarding sex-based spaces. Instead remarks “Opportunities GI Policy creates for dialogue”
11/
1.On the matter of form
1.3 - Insufficient Equality Analysis to fully understand the potential negative impacts
Sexual Orientation: Instead of analyzing the potential negative outcomes, they do the same remark: “Opportunities GI Policy creates for dialogue”
12/
1.3 - Insufficient Equality Analysis to fully understand the potential negative impacts
Sexual Orientation: Instead of analyzing the potential negative outcomes, they do the same remark: “Opportunities GI Policy creates for dialogue”
12/
1.On the matter of form
1.3 - Insufficient Equality Analysis to fully understand the potential negative impacts
Sex: Ignores serious concerns raised by both men and women about safeguarding measures. Instead remarks “Opportunities GI Policy creates for dialogue”
13/
1.3 - Insufficient Equality Analysis to fully understand the potential negative impacts
Sex: Ignores serious concerns raised by both men and women about safeguarding measures. Instead remarks “Opportunities GI Policy creates for dialogue”
13/
1.On the matter of form
1.3 - Insufficient Equality Analysis to fully understand the potential negative impacts
Please see the specific content created by EHRC regarding the sex-based exclusions as the City repeatedly misrepresents those concepts
https://tinyurl.com/yakjx86y
14">https://tinyurl.com/yakjx86y&...
1.3 - Insufficient Equality Analysis to fully understand the potential negative impacts
Please see the specific content created by EHRC regarding the sex-based exclusions as the City repeatedly misrepresents those concepts
https://tinyurl.com/yakjx86y
14">https://tinyurl.com/yakjx86y&...
Remarks on the matter of form
Insufficient promotion (Twitter)
Badly chosen period and duration given the potential implications (Mid-summer for 51 days)
Insufficient and superficial Equality Analysis
Lack of involvement of important stakeholders, experts and organizations
15/
Insufficient promotion (Twitter)
Badly chosen period and duration given the potential implications (Mid-summer for 51 days)
Insufficient and superficial Equality Analysis
Lack of involvement of important stakeholders, experts and organizations
15/
2.On the matter of ideology
2.1 - From the Gender Identity Policy approved by the Establishment Committee on the 30/04/19 I would like to make the following points:
!!No reference to the definition of “Gender Identity”!!
16/
2.1 - From the Gender Identity Policy approved by the Establishment Committee on the 30/04/19 I would like to make the following points:
!!No reference to the definition of “Gender Identity”!!
16/
2.On the matter of ideology
2.1 - From the Gender Identity Policy I would like to make the following points:
Misrepresentation of the EA2010 by saying that “gender identity” is a protected characteristic as if their “interpretation” supersedes the LAW.
17/
2.1 - From the Gender Identity Policy I would like to make the following points:
Misrepresentation of the EA2010 by saying that “gender identity” is a protected characteristic as if their “interpretation” supersedes the LAW.
17/
2.1 - From the Gender Identity Policy I would like to make the following points:
Misrepresents a statement issued by the Equality and Humans Rights Commission to justify their ideological decision to replace “gender reassignment” with “gender identity”
18/
Misrepresents a statement issued by the Equality and Humans Rights Commission to justify their ideological decision to replace “gender reassignment” with “gender identity”
18/
2.1 - From the Gender Identity Policy I would like to make the following points:
There are no services with gender identity restrictions. Yet, once again, the City of London decided to misrepresent the Law
19/
There are no services with gender identity restrictions. Yet, once again, the City of London decided to misrepresent the Law
19/
2.1 - From the Gender Identity Policy I would like to make the following points:
From their conclusion, one doubt arises: Why the need for a new “Gender Identity” Policy if gender reassignment is already protected?
20/
From their conclusion, one doubt arises: Why the need for a new “Gender Identity” Policy if gender reassignment is already protected?
20/
2.On the matter of ideology
2.2 - From the report presented to the Establishment Committee I would like to make the following points
Advises that the adoption of the GI Policy will ensure a clear and consistent approach to “gender identity” without EVER defining it
21/
2.2 - From the report presented to the Establishment Committee I would like to make the following points
Advises that the adoption of the GI Policy will ensure a clear and consistent approach to “gender identity” without EVER defining it
21/
2.2 - From the report presented to the Establishment Committee I would like to make the following points
Misleading information regarding the policy:
Duties under the EA2010 ideologically misrepresented
Survey results highly biased
Insufficient Equality Impact Assessment
22/
Misleading information regarding the policy:
Duties under the EA2010 ideologically misrepresented
Survey results highly biased
Insufficient Equality Impact Assessment
22/
2.On the matter of ideology
2.2 - From the report presented to the Establishment Committee I would like to make the following points
Lack of rationale for the adoption of a “Gender Identity” Policy and lack of clear advantages over the actual law
23/
2.2 - From the report presented to the Establishment Committee I would like to make the following points
Lack of rationale for the adoption of a “Gender Identity” Policy and lack of clear advantages over the actual law
23/
2.On the matter of ideology
2.2 - From the report presented to the Establishment Committee I would like to make the following points
Primal objective of “reducing discrimination to transgender people” is based on a serious misrepresentation of the LAW
24/
2.2 - From the report presented to the Establishment Committee I would like to make the following points
Primal objective of “reducing discrimination to transgender people” is based on a serious misrepresentation of the LAW
24/
2.On the matter of ideology
2.2 - From the report presented to the Establishment Committee I would like to make the following points
The report´s last point show us clearly that all the misrepresentations of the EA2010 were ideologically motivated
25/
2.2 - From the report presented to the Establishment Committee I would like to make the following points
The report´s last point show us clearly that all the misrepresentations of the EA2010 were ideologically motivated
25/
2.On the matter of ideology
2.3 From the GI Survey Report presented to the Establishment Committee I would like to make the following points
Use of ambiguous terms, wrong concepts with no science-based support and ideologically biased phrasing
26/
2.3 From the GI Survey Report presented to the Establishment Committee I would like to make the following points
Use of ambiguous terms, wrong concepts with no science-based support and ideologically biased phrasing
26/
2.3 From the GI Survey Report presented to the EC I would like to make the following points
Ambiguous terms like Gender Identity. No definition of “Gender Identity” whatsoever. If that´s so important where is the definition?
27/
Ambiguous terms like Gender Identity. No definition of “Gender Identity” whatsoever. If that´s so important where is the definition?
27/
2.3 From the GI Survey Report presented to the EC I would like to make the following points
Wrong concepts with no science-based support like the idea of gender being "Assigned" at birth. It´s SEX and it´s OBSERVED.
28/
Wrong concepts with no science-based support like the idea of gender being "Assigned" at birth. It´s SEX and it´s OBSERVED.
28/
2.3 From the GI Survey Report presented to the EC I would like to make the following points
It´s called sexual ORIENTATION. Not PREFERENCE. As insulting as you can be, implying that people can "identify" as disable is very wrong!
29/
It´s called sexual ORIENTATION. Not PREFERENCE. As insulting as you can be, implying that people can "identify" as disable is very wrong!
29/
2.3 From the GI Survey Report presented to the EC I would like to make the following points
Gender Identity is not covered by the EA2010 yet some of the questions start with "Do you identify as:" The survey lose its objectivity thus raising the question of its own validity
30/
Gender Identity is not covered by the EA2010 yet some of the questions start with "Do you identify as:" The survey lose its objectivity thus raising the question of its own validity
30/
2.3 From the GI Survey Report presented to the EC I would like to make the following points
The study had 40.000 responses but only about 21.000 were deemed “valid”. The others were excluded by some previously unknown criteria never disclosed to the respondents anywhere
31/
The study had 40.000 responses but only about 21.000 were deemed “valid”. The others were excluded by some previously unknown criteria never disclosed to the respondents anywhere
31/
2.3 From the GI Survey Report presented to the EC I would like to make the following points
The relevant questions for the survey had a highly biased phrasing misleading the respondents regarding the EA2010. No gender based exclusions. GI is not a protected.
32/
The relevant questions for the survey had a highly biased phrasing misleading the respondents regarding the EA2010. No gender based exclusions. GI is not a protected.
32/
2.3 From the GI Survey Report presented to the EC I would like to make the following points
Important inputs were disregarded on account of being “in opposition of the EA2010”. SEX is a protected characteristic. NOT GENDER IDENTITY.
33/
Important inputs were disregarded on account of being “in opposition of the EA2010”. SEX is a protected characteristic. NOT GENDER IDENTITY.
33/
Remarks on the matter of ideology
Blatant and deliberate misrepresentations of the EA2010 regarding “gender identity” with a clear objective of disregard sex as a protected characteristic
Unclear advantages of this new policy over the EA2010 and the protections it enforces
34/
Blatant and deliberate misrepresentations of the EA2010 regarding “gender identity” with a clear objective of disregard sex as a protected characteristic
Unclear advantages of this new policy over the EA2010 and the protections it enforces
34/
Remarks on the matter of ideology
Highly biased survey with ambiguous wording, concepts and misleading information with a clear objective of having only affirmative responses.
Regarding this please see attached Tweet by @edwardlord
35/
Highly biased survey with ambiguous wording, concepts and misleading information with a clear objective of having only affirmative responses.
Regarding this please see attached Tweet by @edwardlord
35/
Remarks on the matter of ideology
Important survey results (almost half was deemed invalid) were disregarded and many concerns raised were dismissed supposedly for being in “opposition with the EA2010”
No definition of “Gender Identity” (RED FLAG)
36/
Important survey results (almost half was deemed invalid) were disregarded and many concerns raised were dismissed supposedly for being in “opposition with the EA2010”
No definition of “Gender Identity” (RED FLAG)
36/
3.On the matter of accountability
3.1 The City of London Corporation @cityoflondon
The City of London completely disregarded all of its duties outlined on the EA2010 as per the Public Sector Equality Duty (s. 149 of the EA2010.)
37/
3.1 The City of London Corporation @cityoflondon
The City of London completely disregarded all of its duties outlined on the EA2010 as per the Public Sector Equality Duty (s. 149 of the EA2010.)
37/
3.1 The City of London Corporation @cityoflondon
The City of London actively and deliberately misrepresented the protected characteristics under the EA2010, even on their own Code of Conduct where sex was replaced by gender!!
37/
The City of London actively and deliberately misrepresented the protected characteristics under the EA2010, even on their own Code of Conduct where sex was replaced by gender!!
37/
3.1 The City of London Corporation @cityoflondon
The City of London, and Mr. Edward Lord on its behalf, decided that their interpretation of the Law, even using the EHRC as decoy, would supersede the actual Law to further their ideology, ie, replace sex by Gender Identity
38/
The City of London, and Mr. Edward Lord on its behalf, decided that their interpretation of the Law, even using the EHRC as decoy, would supersede the actual Law to further their ideology, ie, replace sex by Gender Identity
38/
3.1 The City of London Corporation @cityoflondon
The City of London even goes to the extent of sharing misleading information to the public
Calls a biased and poorly design survey “Research into Gender Identity”
https://www.citymatters.london/city-aspires-leader-equality/
38/">https://www.citymatters.london/city-aspi...
The City of London even goes to the extent of sharing misleading information to the public
Calls a biased and poorly design survey “Research into Gender Identity”
https://www.citymatters.london/city-aspires-leader-equality/
38/">https://www.citymatters.london/city-aspi...
3.1 The City of London Corporation @cityoflondon
The City of London even goes to the extent of sharing misleading information to the public:
Proclaims “widespread support” only after the exclusion of almost half the respondents
https://www.citymatters.london/city-aspires-leader-equality/
39/">https://www.citymatters.london/city-aspi...
The City of London even goes to the extent of sharing misleading information to the public:
Proclaims “widespread support” only after the exclusion of almost half the respondents
https://www.citymatters.london/city-aspires-leader-equality/
39/">https://www.citymatters.london/city-aspi...
3.1 The City of London Corporation @cityoflondon
The City of London even goes to the extent of sharing misleading information to the public:
Misrepresent the EA2010 saying that “gender identity” is in line with the EA2010
https://www.citymatters.london/city-aspires-leader-equality/
40/">https://www.citymatters.london/city-aspi...
The City of London even goes to the extent of sharing misleading information to the public:
Misrepresent the EA2010 saying that “gender identity” is in line with the EA2010
https://www.citymatters.london/city-aspires-leader-equality/
40/">https://www.citymatters.london/city-aspi...
3.On the matter of accountability
3.2 The Sponsor @edwardlord
According to the City of London Code of conduct, all members must have regard to the Seven Principles of Public Life. Please see the next tweet
41/
3.2 The Sponsor @edwardlord
According to the City of London Code of conduct, all members must have regard to the Seven Principles of Public Life. Please see the next tweet
41/
3.2 The Sponsor @edwardlord
Breach of Objectivity Principle: Please see Points 1 and 2. Pure disregard by opposing views as per the tweet attached. Mr.Lord unable to distance his reality (being non-binary).
42/
Breach of Objectivity Principle: Please see Points 1 and 2. Pure disregard by opposing views as per the tweet attached. Mr.Lord unable to distance his reality (being non-binary).
42/
3.2 The Sponsor @edwardlord
Breach of Accountability Principle: Please see point 1 (Form). No effort to promote the survey. No effort to consult important stakeholders like Schools, Teachers and Parents. Block dissent voices on Twitter
43/
Breach of Accountability Principle: Please see point 1 (Form). No effort to promote the survey. No effort to consult important stakeholders like Schools, Teachers and Parents. Block dissent voices on Twitter
43/
3.2 The Sponsor @edwardlord
Breach of the Honesty and Leadership Principle - For all the above mentioned
An official complaint will be filled with the Standards Committee @cityoflondon. I know Mr. Lord is a member of that Commitee. It won´t be any impediment of course...
45/
Breach of the Honesty and Leadership Principle - For all the above mentioned
An official complaint will be filled with the Standards Committee @cityoflondon. I know Mr. Lord is a member of that Commitee. It won´t be any impediment of course...
45/
Remarks on the matter of accountability
It´s clear by now that the whole process was never intended to be a open and clear one.
Given the dates, the duration, the medium, the biased survey, the lack of clarification about what is expected and why it is needed (continues)
46/
It´s clear by now that the whole process was never intended to be a open and clear one.
Given the dates, the duration, the medium, the biased survey, the lack of clarification about what is expected and why it is needed (continues)
46/
Remarks on the matter of accountability
Plus the misleading results and faulty equality assessment we can safely assume all the faults and serious issues raised were deliberate.
They are actively erasing sex and replacing it with Gender Identity without even defining it
47/
Plus the misleading results and faulty equality assessment we can safely assume all the faults and serious issues raised were deliberate.
They are actively erasing sex and replacing it with Gender Identity without even defining it
47/
Given the serious attempts to misrepresent the Law
Given the complete disregard for the public interest and the potential negative outcomes of such Policy
Given the incredible lack of respect for due process, open democracy, integrity, accountability honesty and leadership
48/
Given the complete disregard for the public interest and the potential negative outcomes of such Policy
Given the incredible lack of respect for due process, open democracy, integrity, accountability honesty and leadership
48/
Something has to be done.
As concerned citizens, we have to do our best to raise awareness to activities like this.
We must expose them. We must e-mail our MP´s. Raise the question with media.
"Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much"
As concerned citizens, we have to do our best to raise awareness to activities like this.
We must expose them. We must e-mail our MP´s. Raise the question with media.
"Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much"
