This short post concerns John Davidson's racism, following his saying of a racial slur at the BAFTAs (the latter whose own racism and ableism we'll also discuss). The context is racist, not his illness, but the two overlap nonetheless. Furthermore, and given my emphasis on combating tokenism through intersectionality (awareness and teamwork), I feel uniquely positioned to weigh in on what occurred. I now wish to discuss the racism and ableism that followed, Davidson's moderately bigoted antics sitting a gradient thereof, workers-vs-the-state. My doing so, here, examines dialectically-materially the context of consent and why it matters; i.e., regarding the BAFTAs, yes, but also choices Davidson made before, during and after the event, as well as those made by others in response to him, and so on.
Disclaimers
"Racism and Ableism" is part of my Sex Positivity book series, which continues after its June 2025 finale in small-form content; e.g., essays on and interviews with other sex workers, all of whom I credit on my Acknowledgments pages and Sex Work page. This piece doesn't focus on sex work itself, but widespread exploitation; i.e., in a shared predatory system, dividing workers across racial and able/disabled lines. Refer to "Anti-Zionism (and Anti-Racism/Anti-White-Supremacy)" (2025) for a compendium on my anti-racist material (which also discusses fatphobia, ableism and other bigotries).
(artist, left: Bay Ryan; right: Persephone van der Waard)
For the Visually Impaired: I read this essay on my YouTube channel.
Disclaimer Regarding Essay Contents: All opinions are my own; i.e., as part of my research, conducted alongside my book series, Gothic Communism (2023). The material within is written/speaks about public figures and popular media for purposes of (sex) education, satire, transformation and critique, hence falls under Fair Use regarding copyright and free speech regarding defamation/obscenity laws (the Miller Test; source: Justice.gov). Click here for my entire series disclaimer. Lastly many of the links on this page lead to my age-gated 18+ website where my entire work on Gothic Communism is stored and exhibited.
CW: racism, ableism, fatphobia and rape*; discussions of sex work showing bikini-style pinups
*Meaning (from my definition) "to disempower someone or somewhere—a person, culture, or place—in order to harm them," generally through fetishizing and alienizing acts or circumstances/socio-material conditions that target the mind, body and/or spirit) […] Rape can be of the mind, spirit, body and/or culture—the land or things tied to it during genocide, etc; it can be individual and/or on a mass scale" (source: "Psychosexual Martyrdom," 2024).
Essay Body
Being a trans woman, sex worker and rape survivor* activist and academic who works with sex workers of different marginalities, I try to go outside my normal spheres of influence from time to time; i.e., to listen to minorities who aren't sex workers, thus gain additional perspective regarding the study of opposing socio-material forces (as dialectical materialism does); e.g., YouTubers. Intersectional problems require intersectional solutions, Gothic Communism a dualistic, holistic enterprise in that respect, and one where racism and ableism are anisotropic: meaning different things depending on the direction various forces travel, and whereupon those with more oppression must be heeded by with less through radical empathy. Paulo Freire called this the pedagogy of the oppressed (1968), and it starts by listening to others with more/different oppression than ourselves. Capital alienates all workers differently inside a larger dialog.
*Re: "I'm a Rape Survivor" from "Raising Awareness" (2025).
This time, the person I chose to listen to is Shayna Conde—specifically her "Folks Forget that White Disabled People Can Also Be Racist" (2026), which delivers Conde's opinion as informed by a disabled woman of color's: killk1yoshi. In short, I value Conde's no-nonsense, forthcoming candor alongside a pointedly intersectional approach. She hears Yoshi—a person with Tourette's—say that Davidson couldn't choose to have his neurons misfire (which nervous tics are for people with Tourette's, including racial slurs), only to respond, "You can have a disability and still be racist." I don't disagree, but respond myself: "You can be a racial minority and still be ableist (and/or racist [e.g., black cops] but I digress)." So while opinions are the wilderness between knowledge and ignorance (as Plato puts it), different workers contribute anisotropically towards knowledge to lessen ignorance from unique axes of privilege and oppression; re: Davidson's bigotry is moderate, the entirety existing on a racist gradient overlapping with an ableist one inside a state-vs-worker binary. Bigotry is modular and anisotropic, in this respect. So is liberation, both sharing the same liminal, dualistic stages, bodies and costumes per dialog. Monopolies—though technically impossible, mid-abjection—persist broadly as opposing objectives under a shared tug-of-war had between sides (re: state's rights vs worker rights and those of nature under Cartesian dualism; see: "State Vampirism," 2026).
Keeping all our opinions in mind, I quickly want to unpack things, here; i.e., in an educational, dialectical-material way that prevents racism and ableism as two sides of the same coin; re: through the context of consent and choices we make when punching up instead of down, combatting capital/state power all the while. Matter shapes consciousness, Marx argued, which media (the Superstructure) essentially is when engaged with; consciousness maintains matter in return, the two going back and forth. Consent, for us, challenges the status quo; i.e., matter and media as teaching devices that prevent racism and ableism through different boundaries workers inform, generate and display. Doing so doesn't happen in a vacuum, but mid-struggle from different pedagogies of the oppressed.
Furthermore, just as viewers consent to consuming content from those who give out boundaries in advance (as Yoshi does while discussing their own Tourette's alongside Davidson's, on TikTok), this extends to venues where someone is both an audience member and performer of some kind; i.e., that others in the audience/those running the show become de facto audiences alongside—an audience for an audience, if you will: BAFTA let Davidson through the door knowing he was a campaigner for Tourette's, and others walked through the door knowing (some of them, anyways) that Davidson was disabled and might say something offensive, even racist (and during Black History Month, no less). Yet, knowledge is limited, as far as struggle goes. To it, mutual consent is a tenuous proposition, one where people historically consent (as much as they can) through imperfect, half-informed decisions; i.e., that go on to impact others, through unequal roles and incomplete knowledge; e.g., Davidson was an educator in a public setting with a large audience, one in which others might not have known he was even present and/or to what degree he was capable of acting out through his illness.
(source: Pauline McLean's "I was the poster boy for Tourette's and swore in front of the Queen," 2025)
Love it or hate it, this would be something that falls on Davidson to educate them on; re: as the campaigner of a disability he's built his career around (above), demanding accountability from a celebrity activist: as "standing imprimatur" for others less privileged having the same syndrome he does (and which non-disabled people of color can be ableist, thus racist, towards disabled ethnic minorities; i.e., by punching down reactionarily against Tourette's, Black Skin, White Masks). Context matters, class and race character informing social disputes. Insofar as workers can critique themselves alongside sanctioning bodies, this didn't stop Davidson from shifting blame/displaying a curious lack of foresight regarding his own illness; e.g., wanting the focus not to be on one particular slur (when that's not really his place to ask, his tone-policing essentially telling non-white people what should offend them—all according to what he, a white person, wants);
Davidson added that he did not want the focus to be solely on this particular slur, saying that he would "appreciate reports of the event explaining that I ticced perhaps 10 different offensive words on the night of the awards." He added: "The N-word was one of these, and I completely understand its significance in history and in the modern world, but most articles are giving the impression I shouted one single slur on Sunday." /As an example, Davidson explained why he had shouted the word "paedophile" while event host Alan Cumming made a joke about Paddington Bear (source: Andrew Pulver's "Tourette syndrome activist John Davidson says Bafta told him ‘any swearing would be edited out of the broadcast,'" 2026).
i.e., despite how he "held discussions with BAFTA before the ceremony about the possibility of his ticking" and that "StudioCanal were working closely with BAFTA, and BAFTA had made us all aware that any swearing would be edited out of the broadcast," Davidson still told Variety afterwards: "I remember there was a microphone just in front of me, and with hindsight I have to question whether this was wise, so close to where I was seated, knowing I would tic" (source: Steven McIntosh's "Tourette's campaigner says BBC 'should have worked harder' to stop his slur being aired," 2026). Dude's over here acting like the BBC isn't racist, while also pointing the finger right at them, not himself:
Choices overlap then through a shared venue-in-a-venue, the context of the ensuing racism and ableism equally intersectional across space and time. This means in and out of the BAFTAs, and falls upon Davidson/the BBC and BAFTA as racist to varying degrees. Racism is pandemic, after all, but also selective/situational. So is ableism, the two overlapping through an uphill struggle (which development is). It certainly wouldn't kill Davidson to apologize for/fess up to his own lax shortsightedness, then; e.g., "I have Tourette's but still should've used my brain by not sitting next to a microphone. I am not a baby." Yet, by shifting blame solely onto BAFTA-as-scapegoat, Davidson is to some degree infantilizing himself, thus throwing all peoples with Tourette's into a bad light. Onlookers won't stop at demonizing him, a famous person; they'll antagonize others with Tourette's, those with racial oppression forced to endure ableism through the actions of a white savior who—suddenly in the public spotlight (without the Queen to protect him)—lost his nerve. They'll be seen both as objects of pity and sources of fear by ableists of all walks, losing their collective agency in the process. Consent must be restored, which requires holding everyone accountable to avoid bigotry and reduce harm across the board.
Regarding all of that, here's what I wrote in Conde's comments section:
Trans-woman sex worker, activist and academic, here (note: CAPS = italics). I want to address John Davidson's role regarding what happened, not the BBC or BAFTAs (who are Zionist ergo racist, unto themselves).
As an invigilator of difficult topics (namely sex work and the prevention of sexual harm), I repeatedly stress CONSENT—specifically mutual INFORMED consent—being had, IN advance. This goes for the people/organizations HOSTING the event, but also any ATTENDEES who might advocate for disabilities and other marginalities, IN the audience; i.e., that—in DAVIDSON's case—have the capacity to CAUSE harm if consent is NOT respected. To that, consent = whatever people agree to based on the information they CURRENTLY have, "at the door" (where consent occurs). Ergo, if they DON'T have enough information, then consent is NOT effectively established, beforehand; e.g., Jordan and Lindo had NOT consented, ahead of time, because they WEREN'T aware Davidson could say a racial slur the way HE ultimately did. Their visible (and collective) shock speaks for itself. To that, you're absolutely correct in saying two things can be true at once: Davidson IS disabled and racist; i.e., when choosing to ask for forgiveness, afterwards, instead of permission in advance—essentially pleading for "carte blanche" versus preparing people for what COULD transpire IN his company. Clearly he failed in that respect because everyone WASN'T prepared to receive the racial slur he ultimately gave. Context matters, and the context here—when examined in totality—is racist.
Equally important, though, is avoiding ABLEISM in response. Intersectional problems require intersectional solutions; i.e., when RAISING awareness and BOLSTERING teamwork, regarding holistic intersections of class, culture and race. Someone's illness shouldn't excuse their racism ignoring consent, but neither should generational trauma tied to slavery invite ableism when racism occurs. A bigotry for one is a bigotry for all, and people of color can be ableist in response TO racism; i.e., by punching down in ableist ways. Such things historically overlap.
First, racist apologia, in THIS case, doesn't concern the immediate actions where control was ABSENT, on Davidson's part, but rather those moments before and after where he DID have control; i.e., he—as an advocate for Tourette's and haver of the condition, himself—could have better prepared those around him as HIS de facto audience. He did not, as far as I know, and his inability to do so/decision to fixate on his "not being racist" amounts to bigoted choices by him ignoring consent; i.e., that deny POCs the ABILITY to consent/voice concerns about his choices; re: as an advocate who favors forgiveness OVER permission, the latter required BY consent to function. Davidson either has Tourette's or he doesn't, but he remains an educator/advocate for disabled rights intersecting WITH racial minorities. This means he DOESN'T reduce to "a person with Tourette's," one to treat in public the way he would be in private (where he would know what his nervous tics were), but rather must TAKE responsibility IN public by acknowledging his role as EDUCATOR—one whose choices DON'T respect mutual informed consent at a larger OPEN venue filmed FOR public consumption. To ignore his educator's role as white disabled person only infantilizes him and those HE affected, while also treating HIS disability as a shield FROM criticism ABOUT racism: one to divide and conquer disabled AND racial minorities, at the same time, through overlapping modules of privilege AND oppression (e.g., Jordan and Lindo being non-disabled black men, and Davidson being a disabled white man).
Second, we must learn to hold each OTHER accountable WITHOUT being bigoted, ourselves. Concerning DAVIDSON, this means critiquing him for his racism without being ableist; re: two things CAN be true at the same time, racism and ableism things to COMBAT by activists, who if THEY'RE not careful, can VIOLATE consent by being bigoted IN reply. Such things are ultimately ANISOTROPIC, insofar as their status as bigoted or not ultimately determines by whatever privilege affects whatever minority PER case. Bigotry is ultimately CUMULATIVE, then, and must be discouraged on ALL fronts simultaneously.
To conclude, consent takes priority while raising awareness to MINIMIZE harm FOR minorities AT LARGE; i.e., lest the cycle REPEAT, thus harm OTHER people tied to the larger groups Davidson, Jordan and Lindo respectively represent. Bigotry ISN'T activism, be that racism, ableism, or both.
Conde isn't "wrong" anymore than Yoshi is, their shared decision to speak out synchronistically contributing to a larger conversation I'm highlighting here; re: about consent, one that Davidson—through the context of the choices he made before, during and after the BAFTAs—used to abdicate his own responsibility as far as consent goes. But his doing so, while meriting critique on its own, shouldn't encourage minorities to punch down instead of up. The enemy is capital/the bourgeoisie, who routinely rely on distractions like these to dodge criticism, themselves; e.g., the Epstein files, but also various genocides happening around the world; re: Akinola Davies Jr., who the BBC censored while keeping Davidson's slur intact:
The BBC is facing backlash for editing out a section of its coverage of the British Academy Film Awards (BAFTAs) in which prize-winning filmmaker Akinola Davies Jr says, "Free Palestine," even while a racial slur remained audible in the same programme.
Davies Jr., who was awarded outstanding debut by a British writer, director or producer for his film My Father's Shadow, ended his acceptance speech on Sunday with words of solidarity to "those under occupation, dictatorship, persecution and those experiencing genocide." "To those watching at home, archive your loved ones, archive your stories yesterday, today and forever. For Nigeria, for London, Congo, Sudan, Free Palestine" (source: Aljazeera's "BBC Criticised").
or as I say myself
Discourse on disabled people should be directed by disabled people. Furthermore, the BBC censored "Archive your loved ones; archive your stories yesterday, today and forever. For Nigeria, for London, the Congo, Sudan, free Palestine" while keeping the slur in, then refusing to explain the context behind it throughout. Tells you all you need to know. Zionists gonna Zionist, using anything they can to distract from their own crimes; e.g., scapegoating a disabled man with Tourette's to confuse and ultimately divide and conquer different minorities trying to punch up. Disabled people aren't a burden or a curse, and segregation only feeds into ableism and racism as part of a shared problem: Capitalism (source YouTube community post, Persephone van der Waard: February 24th, 2026, in response to The Kavernacle's "We Need to talk about Tourette's, Racism and The BAFTAs," 2026).
There's certainly nothing wrong with discussing overlapping bigotries to deconstruct and discourage them, but don't lose sight of the larger systemic issue here. The problem is Capitalism, which relies on extant, competing bigotries like racism and ableism to survive. Slurs aren't activism, nor are actions tantamount to slurs/apologizing for them by refusing to take responsibility for our actions; i.e., those we do have control over while keeping the overarching context squarely in mind.
To conclude, that's where knowledge begins and ignorance ends, consent something to foster and teach better lessons with. We can't do that while infantilizing ourselves and others; e.g., my partner Bay Ryan—despite being disabled and non-white—would never in a million years want to be treated like they/other Maori people "can't make mistakes," but also would never want to experience racism from other minorities (white or otherwise). These aren't mutually-exclusive ideas. Neither is a desire to avoid being racist and ableist through dialogs of mutually-informed consent, which myself and various other sex workers engender (e.g., combating fatphobia, queerphobia and ableism through anti-Zionist dialogs married to Gothic media; re: "Anti-Zionism"). If we can do it, so can you. Break a leg.
