MA: I can identify at least two other pages that I would find offensive. On p. (), I think there is implication that this would threaten ability of SSS to do their jobs, which I think creates this climate of fear. On p. (), there is implication that this would somehow lead to greater instances of women and girls who are born in female bodies... to be exposed to people who are in male bodies, and I think - again, I found this offensive.
BC: Okay. Why is it offensive for women and girls and FPFW (which argues on behalf of that group), why is it offensive for them to say they feel uncomfortable (or would) and that their dignity and privacy was undermined if they felt obliged to share a private space or service with male-bodied people?
MA: I don't find that offensive. I find it offensive to imply, as this does, that allowing transpeople to self-ID, and be women, would lead to an increased set of risks of discomfort for cis women. That's what I found and find offensive. I'm willing for people to hand this out outside, but I don't think it should be in the office and putting it amongst your colleagues.
BC: I don't understand. Am I misunderstanding? I heard you say it is not offensive for women and girls to be concerned about (the above), but that it is offensive for them to have concerns about that? Can you square that? I don't understand.
EJ: I recorded the answer as being that it is offensive to imply that allowing self-ID would lead to an increase in risks, threats and discomfort.
BC: Very well. If you agree that it is not offensive for women and girls to find it undermining of privacy etc to feel under pressure to share SSS with male-bodied people, then, doesn't it follow that it's not offensive to share their concerns about a change in the law which would - they believe - lead to such pressure?
MA: No, because it's not the same in my mind, because what you are doing there is implying that also, if more TW are able to self-ID, that makes the risks go up in ways that I just find the linkage to be offensive in making TW appear to be a threat.
BC: Do you not understand that one of the risks being identified is not a risk of TW attacking women, but a risk of the undermining of women's safety, dignity and privacy in and of itself?
MA: I understand that is being discussed.
BC: Let me suggest that even if you have discomfort about these arguments, if it is right that campaign lit in the office was normal at the time, there is nothing intrinsically improper about this? They are legit campaigning arguments.
MA: I disagree because in all the time I have been at CGD, and I haven't spent much time in London office, I have not seen anybody bringing in campaign lit on an issue that was as polarising for people as a social issue like this. I don't think it was usual. I can't speak with confidence about the London office because I wasn't present in the same way.
BC: Last reason is division at SPG level. That is the reason you gave MF?
MA: Y
BC: Let me suggest it was the actual reason.
MA: It was certainly a reason. Division and fractious, worsening of relationships in the leadership team, and I felt this was source of concern. I needed to get these people back to focusing on their work.
BC: Let's break down your approach. In the intro (para X), you refer to decision about VF as whether you should take an active decision to affiliate to CGD, and you say your view was that offering to renew VF was an act of 'commission'. Starting point would have been to renew the VF. Non-active default was not to renew.
MA: Y. It had lapsed. No action would have left things as they stood.
BC: So, if you say to do the active thing you need consensus, you are a) making it in practice a collective decision, not yours...
MA: I don't agree but okay.
BC: b) effectively handing a veto to the opponents of the active decision?
MA: N. Because I can give you many instances where I moved forward where a) I did not have consensus and b) I had a divided SPG.
BC: I'm interested in this one. You say offering to renew the VF did require consensus. In this instance, you said you needed consensus. That was an effective veto.
MA: As I say, sentence thereafter in same paragraph, I note that I have in mind all the other issues. As I said, no reason to assume that in this decision alone I would have applied consensus. Many of major decisions, I have (lost what he's saying here.)
BC: On Friday, you said decision would have been same regardless of lack of consensus, because of risk of repeat.
MA: Actually what I think I said was that if there had been reluctant... consensus, then I would not have gone ahead because I would have had pause and still have come out with same decision.
BC: But again, reason you gave for coming out with same decision was your suggestion that there was a risk of repeat and issue cropping up again?
MA: And consequences that would flow.
BC: No factual basis for that position (as MF had already indicated the opposite). No factual basis for thinking that, did you?
MA: Had to make a judgment about balance of risks. So you're right - no factual evidence. But I saw my role as being able to look ahead and think about risks to org.
BC: Again, the reason you didn't mention this at the time and can't point to evidence is because it wasn't really a factor, was it?
MA: Reason I can't provide a factual basis is because there wasn't one. I didn't want to get embroiled in a long conversation. I wanted to give a couple of reasons, and then to talk about what came next. I didn't see it as an occasion to discuss all the risks.
BC: Real reason was EM and others made clear they wouldn't change their mind. It was a collective decision driven by opposition.
MA: You can keep saying that. I certainly took on board the lack of consensus and more than that, the degree of fractured relationships, but that point, alone would not have been sufficient.
BC: Bundle.
MA: MF sent email after your call, asking for you to confirm understanding of discussion.
BC: You understood she was making an allegation of being turned down because of her beliefs?
MA: Y
BC: You thought she was litigious?
MA: I worried yes.
BC: As did EM?
MA: Y
BC: suggested lawyers take over?
OD: Sorry?
MA: Yes.
BC: Don't want to know about that discussion, but upshot was you sent email to MF.
MA: Y
BC: And if you look at p (), the attitude behind that short email was (MP) 'send it and see what happens'. EM says send ASAP.
MA: Y
BC: I'm suggesting the attitude behind the short email was send it and we'll see what happens.
MA: That's what MP says.
BC: That attitude reflects clear understanding that email in those terms would make future relationship impossible?
MA: Disagree. I asked MP to follow up on the consultancy. Email was a result of conversations with the lawyers. Their advice... the outcome was that I was to draft email to send. No way in my mind was this equivalent of asking MP not to continue conversations about the consultancy.
BC: If you had intended him to take that forward, you would not have written 'Thank you for your contribution to CGD and CGDE over last two and a half years.' You would have written 'We hope you will continue' etc.
MA: Could have done, you can argue about whether it would have been better. But this was email as a result of a process involving our legal advisors. Didn't want to micromanage.
BC: Bundle. This is report to Board in April 2017. Summarising position from 2016. Says under heading CGDE Board of Trustees: delegates management to SPG, enabling integratino of CGDE. It was always an integrated management structure.
MA: That was intention. What I found was that it was uneven and a bit less structured than I would have liked. Whole purpose was moving on with clarity. Also asking AG in 2019 to take over as CEO of CGDE. Whole process to turn this concept into operational reality.
BC: You reinforced that as soon as you arrived?
MA: Took me through late summer of 2017 to get a sense of what was happening. Really began to be applied 2018.