Mick Hartley

Politics and Culture

recent posts

email me

  • Nasty opinions

    Another headline that would have made absolutely no sense a few years back – Social worker wins £55,000 after row about gender-fluid dachshund. Not that it makes much sense now.

    Local authority bosses must pay a lesbian social worker more than £63,000 after she was disciplined for having “nasty opinions” about a colleague’s “gender-fluid” dog.

    Elizabeth Pitt was reported to managers at Cambridgeshire county council for making allegedly transphobic remarks during a video meeting with the council’s “LGBTQIA+ group” last year.

    An employment tribunal heard that Pitt made the comments after a colleague said he identified his dachshund dog as “gender-fluid” and that he had put a dress on the pet to prompt debate. Pitt and another lesbian colleague were reported for commenting on the revelation in a “really aggressive tone”, in which they voiced views that were deemed to be “non-inclusive and transphobic”.

    Perhaps "what a load of fucking bollocks"? Something on those lines, I'd guess. Something entirely appropriate and reasonable.

    Council bosses banned Pitt from contacting members of the group or attending their meetings. In response, the social worker sued the local authority for discrimination and harassment over her so-called gender critical views.

    The tribunal backed Pitt’s claim and awarded the social worker more than £55,000 in damages and £8,000 costs. The judge also recommended that the council change its staff training to include a section on “freedom of belief and speech in the workplace”..

    Pitt and her colleague were also criticised for having commented negatively on “trans women participating in women’s sports and sharing women’s spaces”..

    Evidence submitted to the tribunal showed that colleagues had taken issue with Pitt’s “nasty opinions” and that a formal complaint had been made. At a meeting with council managers, Pitt denied having been aggressive but accepted she could be “direct”. She said the purpose of the group was to discuss that type of subject.

    Managers produced a written report that described Pitt as having been “perceived to be non-inclusive and transphobic”. It was also found by the internal meeting that the social worker had “caused significant offence” and been “particularly inappropriate and ill-judged”.

    Pitt was told that her comments had a “detrimental impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the complainants”. She was banned from contacting any of the LGBTQIA+ group or attend its events.

    It was, in other words, a witch-hunt.

    In his ruling, the judge, Paul Michell, said the tribunal agreed with Pitt’s lawyer that the evidence “unambiguously” showed that “at least part of the reason” for the council’s conduct towards her was her “gender-critical beliefs”. Pitt was awarded nearly £30,000 in loss of earnings and £22,000 compensation for injury to feelings, with interest added.

    Michell recommended that council bosses include a section on freedom of belief and speech in the workplace in its mandatory training for staff within the next six months.

  • In support of sex realism

    Alex Byrne's recent book Trouble with Gender is a rare example of a philosopher willing to tackle the trans industry and the quasi-religious notion of gender identity. Following Byrne's lead, Daniel Kodsi (via Kathleen Stock) writes in The Philosopher's Magazine in support of sex realism – the once obvious but now controversial view that a woman is an adult human female and a man is an adult human male. Sex realism is fundamental to evolutionary biology, but has become taboo in progressive circles, and, shamefully, in progressive (ie nearly all) philosophical circles.

    According to orthodoxy in the philosophy of sex and gender, the sex-based account of woman is not a live option. It is not even allowed as a good approximation to the truth. Rather, it is widely treated as unacceptable to rely on even as a simplifying assumption. From an outsider’s perspective, it is as if physicists had collectively adopted a ban on ever explicitly invoking Newton’s first law of motion. As would probably happen in the physical case, much orthodox theorising about sex and gender thrives on implicitly reasoning in a way which subverts the ban.

    Outside of mainstream philosophy of sex and gender, the situation is better, but not by much. Many philosophers privately recognise that the sex-based account of woman is the natural default hypothesis and are yet to be persuaded of the alleged counterexamples to it. However, almost none is willing publicly to challenge the orthodox rejection of the sex-based account. Tenured professors have proved at least as shy about speaking out as more junior members of the profession; among senior faculty in particular, Byrne is almost unique in his vocal defence of sex realism….

    Although in the robustness of his defence of sex realism, Byrne is an exception among philosophers, philosophers are not themselves an exception among members of their social-political class, broadly construed. Whatever they might say to each other in private or anonymously online, most people interested in succeeding in politically progressive environments have taken care not blatantly to violate the taboo on using “woman” as a sex-based term.

    The reason that such care has so widely been felt necessary is the recent salience of adult males who say that they are women, and who there is intense social-political pressure to take at their word. Crucially, some such adult males are fully sex-typical, in roughly the sense that by almost all interpersonally accessible criteria, they are indiscernible from typical adult human males. For instance, as well as being adult males, they look and sound like adult males, have the usual male genitalia and male levels of testosterone, are exclusively sexually attracted to females, and grew up being perceived and treated by everyone around them as male.

    These males insist that they are women, with the well-worn slogan "trans women are women" – which boils down to “a woman is anyone who says that they are a woman”.

    How could so simplistic a slogan have become so influential, in philosophy as elsewhere? Much of the story will likely have to do with broader social-political developments. But some of it may have to do with squeamishness about the activity of sex. After all, it is often not very nice to attend to the specificities of human male sexuality. Yet the temptation to look away from variant forms of male sexuality may underlie some of the difficulty in understanding why there are sex-typical heterosexual adult human males who not only say that they are women but sometimes make significant personal sacrifices to look the part. More specifically, it inhibits properly addressing a latent challenge for the sex-based account of woman: if such males are unequivocally men, then why do they want so much to be seen as women? For in salient cases, the candid answer turns out to be: because they are sexually aroused by simulating being female. 

    Bingo. We got there.

  • Pyongyang now Moscow’s leading arms supplier

    Interesting, from NK News. North Korean arms shipments to Russia are Ukraine’s ‘worst problem,’ Kyiv says:

    North Korea’s shipments of weapons to Russia are the “worst problem” that Ukraine currently faces, Kyiv’s military intelligence chief said Saturday, identifying Pyongyang as the leading arms supplier supporting Moscow’s invasion.

  • Brindley and Cowan

    The plot thickens. It turns out that the partner of Sandy Brindley, the CEO of Rape Crisis Scotland, is one Sharon Cowan, Professor of Feminist and Queer Legal Studies at Edinburgh University. I know – an academic specialising in " transgender legal issues, and queer legal theory" at the heart of the ERCC controversy. Who would have thought?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Full thread:

    The incident involves a group of female sexual assault survivors, who a few years ago requested a meeting with Sandy Brindley, head of Rape Crisis Scotland. They wanted to express their concerns about gender self-ID legislation. 2/9

    Specifically, the survivors wanted Rape Crisis Scotland to support a woman's right to request a female medical practitioner. They went to the meeting well aware that they'd be reliving and possibly discussing their own highly traumatic experiences . 3/9

    When they arrived at the meeting, the survivors found another woman present, in addition to Sandy Brindley. This woman wasn't introduced, so the survivors assumed she must be another woman who'd experienced rape or sexual assault. 4/9

    They were mistaken. The woman in question was @sharoncowan22 , Sandy Brindley's romantic partner, who had no role at Rape Crisis Scotland but is an academic with a particular interest in gender identity and trans issues. 5/9

    Sandy Brindley, the head of a rape crisis charity, had invited her girlfriend to sit in on a meeting with victims, none of whom had given consent to identifying themselves as rape survivors in front of a total stranger. 6/9

    As if that wasn't enough, @sharoncowan22 spoke up during the meeting to berate and criticise women who want same-sex medical care. The survivors' concerns were dismissed and they were sent on their way. 7/9

    What happened at that meeting has been an open secret ever since among people particularly engaged in the gender self-ID debate. A large number of people were aware that Sandy Brindley had been guilty of a staggering breach of trust and lack of professionalism. 8/9

    Brindley, who claims to be unaware of calls for her to be fired, is responsible for the catastrophe at Edinburgh Rape Crisis. She has betrayed rape survivors' trust in the most brazen ways imaginable. Scottish rape survivors deserve far, far better. Brindley has to go. 9/9

    The Times today:

    The head of Scotland’s leading sexual assault support service is facing growing demands to stand down amid the fallout of a damning report into the running of a centre in Edinburgh….

    A number of women’s groups have joined the Harry Potter author JK Rowling in now calling for the head of RCS, Sandy Brindley, to resign as well.

    They insist she endorsed Wadhwa’s appointment and was vocal in support for the former chief executive despite concerns having been repeatedly raised with her over the failure to protect single-sex support for rape and sexual assault victims under Wadhwa’s leadership.

    They say worries about Wadhwa raised with Brindley as far back as 2021 were dismissed, with Brindley accusing critics of “misinformation” and “harassment” and threatening to report anyone referring to Wadhwa as a man despite the fact that Wadhwa does not have a gender recognition certificate.

    Mary Howden, of the Women’s Rights Network Scotland, said: “Sandy Brindley, the trustees and Mridul Wadwha have been so driven in their ideological belief of gender identity and self-ID they have allowed these beliefs to override the needs of vulnerable women who have been sexually assaulted. Their actions have caused irreparable harm.

    “In any other area, such a damning judgment from a tribunal would have resulted in the immediate dismissal of an employee. The fact that Sandy Brindley remains in employment is a shocking indictment of how little respect they have for survivors. She should be dismissed immediately.”

    To clarify Rowling's comment about "the head of Rape Crisis Scotland's attempts to use rape survivors as human shields for her own career"…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Click to enlarge:

    Brindley-email

  • Hoovering up lucrative contracts

    To expand on that Genevieve Gluck X post I included in my post yesterday….from JL's report at the Glinner Update – The Wadha story is not over:

    It is also worth noting that, in 2021, three women’s sector services in North Lanarkshire were forced into closure after their funding was withdrawn. The council then awarded its new £1.4 million contract to an organisation called Sacro which is not a specialist in domestic violence nor local to the area. Council officers said this decision was “Informed by the findings of gaps in services with respect to specific groups including LGBT+” and that Sacro ‘will better help male victims’. At that time, a man called Arun Gopinath, Mridul Wadhwa’s partner, was a Sacro director.

    Wadhwa spent well over a decade working in the women’s sector, actively pushing an agenda that allows males into what used to be female-only services. Meanwhile, his partner was the director of a company which hoovered up lucrative contracts when these women’s services lost public funding because of their female-only policies.

  • Zionist venom

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    What used to be shocking is now commonplace.

  • A crackdown on lawyers with “unfashionable views”

    And the legal profession is, we learn, by no means immune to gender and DEI blandishments:

    Female barristers are rebelling against what they believe is a crackdown on lawyers with “unfashionable views” amid growing tensions over transgender issues.

    The Legal Feminist, a forum to discuss feminist issues in the legal system, is preparing to fight back against proposals from the industry regulator which could see barristers punished if they fail to act in a way which “advances equality, diversity, and inclusion”.

    Barrister Naomi Cunningham, who specialises in discrimination, said she fears the vagueness of a new proposal from the Bar Standards Board (BSB) paves the way for “arbitrary enforcement” meaning barristers with “unpopular or unfashionable views” get excluded.

    The BSB, which regulates the profession, is consulting on the plans which if enforced could leave barristers who breach the rules facing penalties such as fines, suspensions or a ban.

    “The Legal Feminists are working on a consultation response. I think it’s fair to say we’re unimpressed. This looks like an extraordinary land-grab by our regulator, and an assault both on the rule of law and, ironically, on diversity,” Ms Cunningham said.

    Ms Cunningham said there were concerns the proposal was so “woolly” that it could mean anyone who disagrees with the belief that people can have different genders to their biological sex will be accused of failing to create an inclusive environment and therefore breaking the code.

    “Many people who subscribe to gender identity beliefs take the view that any dissent from that belief is inherently hateful and disrespectful to people with a trans identity,” she said.

    “We don’t know what they mean by ‘act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion’ but we are suspicious that ‘diversity’ won’t turn out to include diversity of thought.”

    I think she could have a point there.

    Samuel Townend, chair of the Bar Council, warned that radical change to BSB’s rules “may have unintended detrimental consequences” and could “affect the profession significantly”.

    There have long been concerns about a lack of diversity at the Bar, with barrister chambers racing to eliminate bias when hiring by turning to methods such as “contextualised recruitment” so that the personal circumstances of applicants are taken into account.

    There have also been rising incidents of bullying. A survey conducted by the Bar Council in 2023 found that 44pc of respondents had experienced or observed bullying, harassment and discrimination while working, up from 38pc in 2021 and 31pc in 2017.

    Baroness Harman is currently leading a review into bullying and harassment in the sector.

    Oh that'll be good. Baroness Harman, aka Harriet Harman, is a keen gender apologist, who "refuses to see a conflict between trans and women’s rights".

  • Putting children at risk

    We've heard already about how the NSPCC has been "completely captured" by Stonewall. Here's the latest:

    The NSPCC’s gender guidance is “confused” and potentially putting children at risk by encouraging them to use opposite-sex changing rooms, a charity has warned.

    The child protection organisation’s unit for keeping children safe in sport “actively encourages” organisations to put children in harm’s way, the campaign group Sex Matters has claimed.

    The group has written the Department for Education (DfE) urging them to force the NSPCC to alter its stance.

    It follows several scandals over the NSPCC’s approach to trans ideology over recent years.

    The Child Protection in Sport Unit (CPSU) was established in 2001 under the NSPCC umbrella in response to a series of child-abuse scandals.

    It receives public funding in the form of grants by Sport England and UK Sport, among others, as well as the Football Association.

    A CPSU briefing document from May 2022 titled “Safe use of changing facilities and toilets” attempts to help sports clubs and other organisations safely manage children’s changing room procedures.

    However, Sex Matters has said that, in practice, the guidance “runs counter to good safeguarding practice” by “ignoring” biological sex in favour of gender.

    In guidance relating to transgender and non-binary children, the document says: “Using gendered changing facilities can be a source of stress for transgender and non-binary children.

    “Sport and activity providers should consider how to support these young people to use the changing rooms that they feel comfortable with.”

    Sex Matters said that this implied that children should be able to choose facilities intended for the opposite biological sex.

    Much concern about the poor trans and non-binary youth feeling uncomfortable: none whatsoever about girls feeling uncomfortable changing next to blokes. It's the same old story.

    Last year it was revealed that the Childline website, which is overseen by the NSPCC, was accused of failing children after teenagers who believed they were trans were told via the site to seek potentially dangerous treatments behind their parents’ backs.

  • Lashed for drinking wine

    Yes, women suffer the most – but it's not just women:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Full text:

    I received this photo from Isfahan, where the authorities raided his house for holding a mixed party which is illegal under Sharia law. Meanwhile, the “reformist” president of this same country where a young man was lashed for sipping wine in his own home is packing his bags to come to New York to the land of free speech and free-flowing wine. Should we expect him to lecture us on human rights and personal freedom while he’s here?

    The man who received the lashes told me:
    “They’ve made it so that even within the walls of our own home, we no longer have security or freedom to practice our beliefs. They arrested all of us, and after a trial without the right to defense, we were lashed for drinking during the month of Safar. Some people might no longer believe in Muharram or Safar—some may no longer want to be Muslim at all.”

    In 21st-century Iran, citizens have no choice in their religion. Whether they practice Islam or not, they are punished under the harsh dictates of Sharia law for acts as simple as drinking, singing, dancing, or holding mixed parties. These acts of repression are reminders that fundamental freedoms, even within the privacy of one’s home, are a distant reality in Iran today.

  • Rape Crisis Scotland responsibility

    The Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre debacle rumbles on. From the Times this morning:

    JK Rowling is leading calls for resignations across Scotland’s rape crisis service after a report found a centre in Edinburgh had “damaged” survivors.

    The author intervened after Mridul Wadhwa, a trans woman, quit as chief executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) having been found to have “failed to set professional standards of behaviour” and for not understanding “the limits on her role’s authority”.

    Wadhwa was identified by an employment judge in May as the “invisible hand” behind a “heresy hunt” against staff espousing gender-critical views.

    Wadhwa had caused a furore after suggesting in a 2021 podcast that victims of sexual assault who wanted a female counsellor were “bigots”, advising them to “reframe” their trauma and have “a more positive relationship with it”.

    Rowling used the website X to demand that “those who appointed, enabled and protected” Wadhwa were fired.

    Well yes – Wadhwa didn't appoint himself. Those responsible knew who and what he was, but were seemingly transfixed by the progressive allure of trans ideology – with no thought given to the women who actually used and needed the service.

    Wadhwa was appointed by the ERCC board but Rowling said Sandy Brindley, the chief executive of the umbrella organisation Rape Crisis Scotland, was also culpable. The chief executive highlighted a social media post made by Brindley in 2019 referring to Wadhwa as “an amazing sister”….

    For critics of Rape Crisis Scotland, the row erupting about ERCC symbolises the ideological capture of the Scottish government by trans activists.

    They point to a joint letter condemning a UK government decision to block Holyrood’s Gender Recognition Reform Act, which would have enabled gender self-identification, signed by 14 organisations, including Rape Crisis Scotland, 13 of whom received direct funding from the Scottish government.

    The feminist campaign group For Women Scotland said the official sanctioning of self-ID allowed Wadhwa to pursue an “extreme and egregious version of gender identity ideology” and relentlessly pursued anyone who dared to question the policy.

    The group added that similar problems remained “apparent in other centres in Scotland and in Rape Crisis Scotland itself”.

    Also:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js