Ian Dean

I conduct a brass band, I play in other brass bands. I’m from Yorkshire. Not (always) a stereotype.

[Trevor Phillips @TrevorPTweets]

My thoughts on the @EHRC guidance laid yesterday; this is not about non-existent "rights". It is about the safety of women - mothers, sisters, wives, daughters. We men need to hear their voices. Virginia Woolf : "Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes".

My intro on @TimesRadio yesterday:

Where I live there are two different routes to and from the tube station. One, let’s call it Acacia Avenue, is quiet and residential. The other, London Road, is a busy major route with lots of traffic. At all times of the day, I automatically head for Acacia Road. It’s just much nicer.

The women in my family, on the other hand, will never willingly make that walk after dark. They live with an anxiety that most men find it hard to imagine, and frankly, rarely think about unprompted.

Last year 739,000 women were sexually assaulted in Britain. Virtually all such assaults - nine out of ten - are perpetrated by men. One in four women have been attacked at some time in their lives. Acacia Avenue is exactly the sort of place in which most women fear that they become vulnerable, and they are right.

As the author Virginia Woolf once wrote " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes".

I think this is the right context in which to understand the furore over the guidance being laid today by the government, over the meaning of the words man and woman when it comes to providing services and facilities in workplaces.

Many men think this is about a rather arcane dispute about who gets to use what loo. For their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, it isn’t.

In a previous life, as Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I had a hand in writing this country’s equality laws, in particular the 2010 Equality Act. It never occurred to any of us that there could be any confusion or dispute over the meaning of the words man and woman. But it has taken a decade of campaigning, a Supreme Court judgement and now hundreds of pages of guidance to settle the issue.

This is not about so called trans rights, which are completely unaffected by this guidance, since no-one has ever had the right to walk into a changing room reserved for teenage girls.

What it does mean is that women and girls are guaranteed the protection they deserve, and that their safety, which we spent half a decade drafting law to ensure, is protected.

But the whole business illuminates some serious issues in our politics.

First that many of our institutions, in spite of the fact that they always knew what the right thing to do was, decided to ignore the fears of their women customers and employees, under pressure from noisy pressure groups. Instead, the people who were supposed to be the grown ups behaved as though the law said what campaigners wanted it to say, rather than what it actually said. They settled for what they hoped would be a quiet life.

In a democracy, there’s little point in Parliament deciding anything if the law is then made an ass by activists intimidating bosses in companies, schools, universities and the media into doing something different.

Second, at the heart of the campaign to undermine the Equality Act is an idea that we specifically rejected in 2010, so called self-identification. That is to say, that it should be up to the individual to decide whether they have what’s called a protected characteristic - are you male or female, are you black or white. The problem is that self-ID would destroy the operation of any law against discrimination.

Look, it would almost certainly have been to my advantage as a young man to self-identify as a handsome, white public schoolboy. None of those things is true of me. And at various points I am pretty sure it’s been to my disadvantage. It is certainly statistically likely to have been to my disadvantage.

But according to the logic of those who say that self-ID should be the rule and that anyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they are male or female, black or white or Asian, were I to complain about racial discrimination, it would be difficult for anyone prove that I’d been discriminated against because of my race since anybody to whom I’d lost out could just tell the courts that they too were black.

I know that sounds like Alice in Wonderland but you can google the case where a chap, both of whose parents are white, insisted he should get money from the Arts Council because he so identified with the black struggle that he considered himself black, and everyone should accept his point of view. In the United States and Brazil exactly such outlandish claims have been made and people rewarded to the disadvantage of people actually born into minority families.

I have even been told about firms who, when reporting their gender pay gaps have put men who just happen to like wearing dresses at weekends - nothing wrong with that, let me be clear - into the female column and told their women employees that they really haven’t got anything to moan about because statistically they are paid equally, and they should get back in their box.

So today’s guidance isn’t just another tiresome chapter in culture wars. It is , I hope, a halt to the efforts to undermine one of the most important pieces of legislation on the statute book, by people who, for their own reasons, would prefer us to be living in the 1950s world of Mad Men.

[Steven Pinker @sapinker]

I explain why the accusation that Israel is committing "genocide" is blood libel.

Me:
The application of the word genocide to refer to tens of thousands of war deaths is, I mean, I think it is a kind of blood libel. It's trying to import the moral opprobrium that we associate with genocide to a designated enemy, in this case, Israel. I think because I alluded to my side bias, the sides in this case being the sides that a lot of hard left critical theory has defined, namely white oppressors against everyone else's victims.

Moynihan:
It's pretty strong to say this is like a blood libel.

Me:
Well, it is a blood libel in the sense that it is an accusation of deliberate murder, ill-founded in that the, and one could disagree with Israel's campaign against Gaza, one could say that this is not justifiable, it's not a just war. It's still different from deliberately murdering as many people as possible, as in, and we know there have been genocides. I think it really is a terrible blood libel, and it's a sign of how people's moralizing in the service of demonizing and dichotomizing, dividing the world into good and evil can just flatten their ability to analyze and to think clearly.

[Helen Pluckrose @HPluckrose]

The Victim-Blaming of Hamit Coskun Points to a Larger Problem
Insults are not violence and the law must not protect offended feelings

New piece in post below. ⬇️

[Dr Svilena Dimitrova @NeoDoc11]

Over the past few weekends and evenings, I’ve spent time reading through the vast and often chaotic commentary online surrounding the Letby case. While the passion is understandable, misinformation is spread by both sides and this is damaging the truth and justice. Personal attacks, name calling, inflammatory language - behaviours that do nothing to support justice - are all over social media. From both sides.

What’s especially troubling is how confidently some are declaring Letby to be innocent. Unless you are a neonatologist with access to the full medical records - or have engaged in detailed discussion with someone who is and whom you have good reasons to trust and has shown you the evidence - you simply cannot make that claim responsibly.

To clarify - it is entirely valid, reasonable and responsible to say the evidence presented in court was beyond ridiculous to secure any conviction, never mind multiple ones. To say that the medical arguments used were based on scientific and medical nonsense. That the conviction is legally unsafe on a multitude of grounds. That Letby’s defence team did a totally inadequate job. That considering all of the above this is a miscarriage of justice as at the very least the convictions are not legally safe. But to confidently assert innocence without direct access to the babies’ records or expertise is just as baseless as asserting guilt under the same conditions. Both categories of people - those shouting guilt and those shouting innocence without proper grounding - are harmful to delivery of the uncovering the truth and therefore justice. They drown out the voices of those trying to do careful my considered work grounded in evidence.

The same principles apply to journalists. Those who reported before and during the trial with great bias and sensationalism bear a great burden of responsibility. They led the pro-guilt media machine that drove this case forward with blind certainty and no room for legitimate concern. People like Liz Hull, Judith Moritz, and Guy Adams - if any of them have the cognitive capacity to recognise that everyone can make mistakes - themselves included - need to ask themselves serious questions. Will any of them ever be brave enough to own their role in this?

I’ve been extremely cautious about who I engage with in the press but there are good journalists out there. Unfortunately - I think they are a minority. Those loudly claiming guilt and those loudly claiming innocence when neither group has the relevant knowledge or access to legally privileged information are two sides of the same harmful coin and BOTH sides undermine genuine efforts to uncover the truth, they confuse the public and professionals attempting to engage amidst a sea of misinformation and opinions confused as facts. They therefore derail meaningful engagement with the issues that very much matter.

Complex medical cases should not be dissected in front of a jury of laypeople, with lawyers performing based on expert testimony that is often biased and wildly unequal. Did you know prosecution experts are paid more than defence experts as they are allowed to negotiate their hours and rates whilst the defence rates are capped and hours heavily negotiated down? That imbalance alone distorts the very notion of justice - doesn’t it ? And it makes sense why those doctors whose ethics may be questionable will always choose the prosecution side. Doesn’t it?

The system as it is not built to expose the truth. It is built for adversarial performance. And when it fails, it does not only fail individual healthcare workers, it fails patients too. If nothing changes, there will be more miscarriages of justice. And there will be many more patients who die from mistakes that are hidden, protected by a system too dysfunctional, too hierarchical, and too dishonest to admit its own flaws. Reform is much overdue.

[Dr. Jane Clare Jones @janeclarejones]

So, a bunch of feminist academics have written an open letter condemning the Supreme Court judgement, and the EHRC's interim guidance.

None of this is particularly surprising, given what we know about how captured academic gender studies is by trans ideology, and the particular interpretation of feminism that supports it.

There is a lot that can be said about this letter, not least that academics should be fucking embrassed to be repeating nonsense about genital checks in toilets, but I'd like to focus on a few paragraphs that make claims about what feminism is and what feminism isn't, because they underline how academic third wave feminism produced a hard orthodoxy that has very successfully attempted to deligitimise/reread/erase second wave feminism, and present itself as the one true feminist way ⬇️

https://t.co/27XATf8qa3

[Oren Barsky @orenbarsky]

Alright, ready for this?

Here’s a quick thread with highlights from The 7 October Parliamentary Commission Report—also known as The Roberts Report.

It’s the most comprehensive document published to date on the events of October 7, 2023, detailing thousands of incidents from that day.

The report was compiled by a commission led by Lord Andrew Roberts of Belgravia—a historian and member of the UK House of Lords.

Its members included Lords, Barons, and MPs from across the British political spectrum.

“We added nothing that wasn’t proven. The horror needs no exaggeration.”

- Lord Roberts, Chair of the Commission

In this thread, I’ll share key excerpts from the report, divided into a few categories:

🔹 The numbers behind the barbaric attack

🔹 Selected quotes from Hamas terrorists during the assault—taken from Hamas’s own materials: GoPro footage, audio recordings, live streams, and social media posts

🔹 Some of the most extreme atrocities committed that day

🔹 Powerful testimony from survivors

No drama. No exaggeration. Just the facts.

Let’s start with the numbers:
👇

[SEEN in Journalism @JournalismSEEN]

Here is is. It leads off on the impact on trans people, and it uses the language of ‘transitioning to a man/woman’ - but stating that no one changes sex is one to bookmark.

There’ll be dozens of complaints. Phone or email with an appreciation if you can.

[Nicole Lampert @nicolelampert]

Since October 7 2023 facts and untruths have vied for public attention.

It has been hard to know what to believe.

Which is why a new report released later today in the House of Commons is so important.

Led by esteemed British historian Lord Roberts of Belgravia it should put an end to the lies once and for all. It probably won’t.

But this has been 12 months work with multiple testimonies proving the sheer monstrousness of the attack which Roberts describes as “scenes of sadistic barbarism not seen in world history since the Rape of Nanjing in 1937.”

He adds: ‘This report will serve as a permanent memorial and enduring resource for governments, educators, and civil society in order to safeguard the truth against denialism and distortion.’

Among the findings: 👇🏼

[LGB Courage Coalition @LGBCourage]

Q&A Wisconsin testimony AB104 @JamieWhistle talks about how she came to change her mind. …. “ I beg my party , please, do the scientific right thing.”

[Aizenberg @Aizenberg55]

🧵Ehud Olmert just released a map of proposed Palestinian state he offered Abbas in 2008, the final shattering of the myth that Abbas said no to statehood because he did not have a proper map. Palestinians had this map all along, proven by the "Palestine Papers." See detail: 1/

[Maya Forstater @MForstater]

Boom! 💥@EHRC writes to the @scotgov and @NHSScotland

https://t.co/zp9a7zy4S3

[YouGov @YouGov]

🧵/ Where does the British public stand on transgender rights in 2024/5?

The 4th study in our series shows that scepticism has grown across the board over the last two years, including among groups typically more sympathetic to trans people

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

This 'why do you care about a tiny fraction of the population?' line is, and always was, utterly ridiculous.

Gender ideology has undermined freedom of speech, scientific truth, gay rights, and women's and girls' safety, privacy and dignity. It's also caused irreparable physical damage to vulnerable kids.

Nobody voted for it, the vast majority of people disagree with it, yet it has been imposed, top down, by politicians, healthcare bodies, academia, sections of the media, celebrities and even the police. Its activists have threatened and enacted violence on those who've dared oppose it. People have been defamed and discriminated against for questioning it. Jobs have been lost and lives have been ruined, all for the crime of knowing that sex is real and matters.

When the smoke clears, it will be only too evident that this was never about a so-called vulnerable minority, notwithstanding the fact that some very vulnerable people have been harmed. The power dynamics underpinning our society have been reinforced, not dismantled. The loudest voices throughout this entire fiasco have been people insulated from consequences by their wealth and/or status. They aren't likely to find themselves locked in a prison cell with a 6'4" rapist who's decided his name's now Dolores. They don't need state-funded rape crisis centres, nor do they ever frequent high street changing rooms. They simper from talk show sofas about those nasty far-right bigots who don't want penises swinging around the girls' showers, secure in the knowledge that their private pool remains the safe place it always was.

Those who've benefited most from gender identity ideology are men, both trans-identified and not. Some have been rewarded for having a cross-dressing kink by access to all spaces previously reserved for women. Others have parlayed their delicious new victim status into an excuse to threaten, assault and harass women. Non-trans-identified leftybros have found a magnificent platform from which to display their own impeccably progressive credentials, by jeering and sneering at the needs of women and girls, all while patting themselves on the back for giving away rights that aren't theirs.

The actual victims in this mess have been women and children, especially the most vulnerable, gay people who've resisted the movement and paid a horrible price, and regular people working in environments where one misplaced pronoun could see you vilified or constructively dismissed. Do not tell me this is about a tiny minority. This movement has impacted society in disastrous ways, and if you had any sense, you'd be quietly deleting every trace of activist mantras, ad hominem attacks, false equivalence and circular arguments from your X feeds, because the day is fast approaching when you'll want to pretend you always saw through the craziness and never believed it for a second.

[Auschwitz Memorial @AuschwitzMuseum]

We encourage all institutions and organizations worldwide to participate in the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by organizing spaces where the live broadcast from the Memorial can be jointly viewed.

On 27 January 2025, the television broadcast of the ceremony produced by the Polish Television @TVP will be available to all, providing an opportunity for collective commemoration and global reflection on the significance of past events. The streaming will be available with English translation via the @YouTube channel of the Museum.

Start: 4 PM (CET)

YouTube link: https://t.co/Guw82LmC00

Such a form of commemorating #Auschwitz80 in different parts of the world is both a mark of respect for history and a call to take moral responsibility for the future, a key component of which is the memory of the Auschwitz tragedy. Planning and announcing a joint viewing of the broadcast in Your institutions can be an important element in uniting Your community around the memory.

[S A M M Y Woodhouse @officialsammyuk]

Kemi feels in 2025 victims must get justice.

Victims such as myself are still left with criminal records as we were criminalised as children when we were being groomed and raped.

Will they fight to have our records cleared after doing absolutely nothing when they were in power?

I find out in the next few weeks if I will be considered to have my criminal record cleared.

Child victims of grooming should never be criminalised. We were not to blame. #SammysLaw @RupertLowe10

[S A M M Y Woodhouse @officialsammyuk]

Years ago I contacted that many politicians and government officials about grooming and corrupt professionals that I was reported to the police and placed under investigation. Apparently, it is considered harassment to report such things even with evidence.

The investigation cleared me and my complaints were eventually investigated and upheld.

Why do people want to make it so difficult for us to get to the truth and protect children?

[Prof Jo Phoenix @JoPhoenix1]

Thread on child sexual exploitation and 'grooming gangs'.

I have long since maintained that where girls and sexual violence through prostitution is concerned state and non-state agencies either turned a blind eye or worse still criminalised the victims.

[Calev Ben-Dor @Fathom_Editor]

Sam Harris: "Of course, the boundary between Anti-Semitism and generic moral stupidity is a little hard to discern—and I’m not sure that it is always important to find it. I’m not sure it matters why a person can’t distinguish between collateral damage in a necessary war and conscious acts of genocidal sadism that are celebrated as a religious sacrament by a death cult. Our streets have been filled with people, literally tripping over themselves in their eagerness to demonstrate that they cannot distinguish between those who intentionally kill babies, and those who inadvertently kill them, having taken great pains to avoid killing them, while defending themselves against the very people who have just intentionally tortured and killed innocent men, women, and yes… babies…

If you have landed, proudly and sanctimoniously, on the wrong side of this asymmetry—this vast gulf between savagery and civilization—while marching through the quad of an Ivy League institution wearing yoga pants, I’m not sure it matters that your moral confusion is due to the fact that you just happen to hate Jews. Whether you’re an anti-Semite or just an apologist for atrocity is probably immaterial. The crucial point is that you are dangerously confused about the moral norms and political sympathies that make life in this world worth living."

[Kirsty Newton ✨️ @kirstynewton]

Yesterday at 7.05pm, someone stole my grey canvas Eastpak suitcase from the luggage compartment next to the door on the Thameslink train to Horsham at Finsbury Park (the only stop between Stevenage where I got on & St. Pancras where I got off)... (cont.)

[Dr Ruth Ann Harpur @drruthannharpur]

Part 2

And why aren’t those professionals providing the information women need to make informed medical decisions. Why are they incapable of interpreting a CTG trace, recognising when a woman and/or baby is in need of urgent medical care? Why do women feel like failures if they cannot breastfeed and why are so many babies hospitalised every year with preventable complications resulting from insufficient milk intake.

The answer is as obvious as it is unpalatable. The responsible professional organisations, not least RCOG and RCM joined forces with NCT and others to declare that “normal” was desirable, optimal and achievable. The obstacle to this, as they saw it was women’s anxiety and medical interventions interfering with nature.

Antenatal “education” primarily designed to make women feel more “confident” about birth, withholding vital information for fear it will cause her anxiety and result in her wanting medical intervention or interfere with “physiology”. Out with medical care. In with giant baths, mood lighting, smelly oils, hypnosis meditations and burning mugwort in an attempt to make a breech baby move.

Out with formula and frequent weighing. In with peer supporters, endless encouragement and steadfast insistence on the superiority of breastfeeding. All that is needed is the “right support” (which we can never define) and women will breastfeed. This will of course create a who new generation in optimal health, optimally bonded, psychologically healthy and capable of ending global warming to boot. NOTHING cannot be achieved if more women would just breastfeed their babies.

Unfortunately, reality and grandiose fantasies simply do not converge and the resulting fiasco is, imho, protecting normal (or physiological) birth and breastfeeding over attending to what women are saying (because, after all, we are aiming at normality and we don’t want to fuel anxiety) and an eschewing of medical interventions.

It is truly at the point now where very few leaders in the field of maternity are even capable of recognising where their ideological position flies in the face of reason and scientific evidence.

Respectful, compassionate and safe care starts with a recognition of risks involved in birth and feeding babies and the implementation of medical science to ameliorate those risks.

There is an easy way to prevent birth trauma. That is prevent trauma (ie. Situations where women and babies are threatened with death and severe, life-changing injuries). The only way to do that isn’t with extra checks, politicians or God save us, “education” by the frankly ill-educated. It is the unapologetic implementation of science based medicine in maternity services.

And if you want science based medicine, the pseudoscientific rot has got to go from hospitals, from midwifery training and professional development. Is it going to? Not without one hell of a fight. Because it involves well meaning people who have done something so wilfully blind and egregiously reckless to realise their good intentions have done far more harm than good. It will mean admitting some grave errors have occurred and professional, scientific and clinical judgement have been lacking in people hailed as esteemed leaders and professors in the field.

But IMHO it is a fight worth fighting and worth winning.

/END