6 March 2019 at 15:21

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

It is with sadness and disappointment that I am leaving the Center for Global Development. I have loved being part of the team, and was planning to work on the Gates Foundation funded “Domestic Resource Mobilisation” programme, which I helped to develop, over the next two years as well as to continue with policy outreach on the Commercial Transparency Principles from the working group that I co-lead last year. I have enjoyed working with you all in London and visiting in Washington DC over the past two and a half years, and I value the support CGD (and many individuals within it) gave me to be outspoken about the ‘great expectations’ on international tax.

I joined CGD via an unconventional route, having engaged in robust discussion on twitter and written a personal blogpost critiquing a claim made in a CGD paper, which lead to CGD withdrawing it and commissioning me to write one.  At one point a funder asked us could we possibly 'just not publish it’ (in pursuit of the broader principle of transparency!). But CGD stood by the principle that it is in the business of enabling evidence-based debate, not progressive movement building (and that ultimately those two goals are not in conflict).

So I am leaving by the same route I came in:  being argumentative on twitter and unwilling to stay quiet about ‘The Emperors New Clothes’ in service of a progressive movement.

The issue at hand is nothing to do with being an outspoken woman about tax, but being outspoken about being a woman. I believe that it is critical for inclusion and equality to recognise that male and female sexes exist. Being a woman is a material reality based on biological sex, not performing gender stereotypes or having a universal feminine feeling. Protections for women’s equality in policy, law and practice rely on having a clear definition of women. This is by its nature exclusionary. It may seem kind and inclusive to say that ‘anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman’ it is incoherent and undermines women’s rights. (I have finally published an article, in time for International Women's Day).  

Everyone’s human rights should be protected, but there are real legal, policy and equity questions about whether male bodied people should have access to women’s single sex services and women’s sports, and I believe that people should be able to talk about the issue. This is an issue on which I have changed my mind by looking at evidence and argument, and talking to people on all sides of the debate. None of this precludes being polite and inclusive to individuals in terms of how they wish to be referred to in social situations, or supporting the human rights of transgender people.

People (mainly women) who have spoken out on this issue have been dismissed and silenced from many organisations that would normally hold open the space for debate, and many have been removed from social media. Others stay quiet out of a desire to be kind, because the issue is controversial and they fear saying the wrong thing, or because they know it would damage their career, or open them up to attack. There is therefore a dearth of clear analysis from the organisations that work on issues related to women, including in development. I read a lot about the issues before I felt able to form a view. I followed and admired the courage of women such as Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock, Linda Bellos and Judith Green who have stood up to have a voice on this issue, and those that have set up new grassroots organisations like Fairplay for Women and Womens Place UK, because established women’s rights organisations and human rights organisations would not give them a platform. In August last year, during the UK government’s consultation on reform to the gender recognition act I decided that it was hypocritical and cowardly of me to stay silent while internally applauding these other women’s bravery, so I began to tweet about it and talk more openly .

However in tweeting about the issue I caused offence and complaints were raised to CGD management. Following an investigation it was found that I had not violated CGD’s bullying and harassment policy, but I had nevertheless said things, including in the draft of the article I published today that some people find ‘offensive and disrespectful’.  The offer for me to be employed at CGD to work on the DRM project was rescinded. Finally the offer to continue as a visiting fellow was also withdrawn last week.

I am disappointed that CGD has chosen this path of least resistance, just as I am disappointed at Amnesty International, Stonewall, the Labour Party and just about every organisation that I have believed in, and that I hoped would stand up for women’s rights and for the principle of respectful, serious evidence-based democratic debate, and disagreement.

These are scary times – politics is polarised and debased. All our instincts say to draw in closer to those we feel are on the side that is 'good' and demonise the other side. But this is not our job. Development in its broadest sense depends on institutions  whose fitness function is to follow the evidence - this is how the world gets better at doing better things.  These institutions are increasingly being hollowed out and displaced from the public debate by those whose fitness function is might, wealth, sensationalism and political tribalism. The big question for CGD and others that are part of this project is how to find a combination of heart, strength, strategy, integrity and resources to make a difference a world where there is less-and-less space or attention for open debate. I wish you luck.

Maya