That sounds like a very sensible set-up (aside from anything else, presumably it significantly lessens the chances of a "surprise! we bought an abbey" moment).

"Not everyone wants to fish: give the dignity of choice" lacks a certain snappiness and isn't really a proverb but other than that I think I've smashed it

Thanks, but that doesn't actually help me engage with the objections of those who are afraid of wokism (or SJW, or DEI) weakening the movement, because each of those terms can mean so many different things. 

A sampling of ideas that seem like they could be included under the umbrella of "wokism" in an EA context:

• "Catering at EA events should be vegan"
• "EA spaces should be welcoming for trans people"
• "EA would be stronger if EAs were less homogenous" 
• "Reports of sexual assault and harassment should be taken seriously"
• "Racism, including so-called 'scientific' racism, is a scourge"

As is probably evident from my comment history, I do happen to agree with all of these assertions. But I would be interested in engaging respectfully with someone who didn't. What I can't do is meaningfully respond to the idea that wokism, undefined, is threatening EA.

(edited to add -  if anyone disagree voting would be willing to tell me what they disagree with, I would appreciate it)

Hi Geoffrey, I commented earlier asking what you mean by woke, and would like to clarify that I'm not "pretending not to know what 'woke' means." It's a word that I only ever see employed derisively and I am truly not sure what it's supposed to mean beyond "views that the speaker holds in contempt." So if you are able to give a sense of what "woke" means to you I would appreciate it, as that would help me understand your viewpoint.

I would also be interested in what you mean by wokeness - I haven't downvoted you but I don't think I follow your point, largely because I don't know what you mean by "woke takeover" or "woke-versus-antiwoke."

You're right, I was feeling frustrated and commented uncharitably. I apologise.

"she recalls being surprised to discover that she was expected to stay in his home" seems to preclude the notion that Cotton-Barratt asked her first, so I'm not sure why you're writing as if we're not clear whether they discussed it beforehand.

Again, I think you're missing the point. This is about a pattern of behaviour.

Thanks, that's interesting - in my experience there is more often a general willingness in theory to believe sexual assault victims, which dissipates in the face of actual allegations about actual men.