Ruth Hunt & Stonewall, "do not and will not acknowledge that there is a conflict between trans rights and ‘sex based women’s rights’

[R0wantrees]

Response to petition,
www.ipetitions.com/petition/dear-stonewall-please-reconsider-your-approach

Since the planned reform of the Gender Recognition Act was announced a year ago, there have been daily articles and social media threads that question trans people’s right to exist, trying to undermine their ability to go about their daily lives free from fear and abuse. This week, a petition has been launched directly asking Stonewall to reconsider our work on trans equality.
The petition asks us to acknowledge that there are a range of viewpoints around sex and gender. Of course we know that these differing views exist, and have existed for many years. The petition also asks us to acknowledge that there is a conflict between trans rights and ‘sex based women’s rights’. We do not and will not acknowledge this. Doing so would imply that we do not believe that trans people deserve the same rights as others. However, we are unequivocal in our support of trans people’s – and everyone’s – right to equality and will remain so. Our motto is ‘acceptance without exception’. (continues)

www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall-stories-category/come-out-lgbt/our-work-trans-equality-heart-our-mission-acceptance

current threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/3384045-Petition-to-Stonewall

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3384407-Times-letter-petition-STONEWALL-CRITICISED-undermining-women-s-sex-based-rights-and-protections-Jonny-Best-et-al

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3384307-James-Kirkup-Spectator-lead-article-Trans-rights-have-gone-wrong-The-new-gender-orthodoxy-allows-no-room-for-dissent

What is her deal? Is it just stupidity? Internalised misogyny? What?

The petition also asks us to acknowledge that there is a conflict between trans rights and ‘sex based women’s rights’. We do not and will not acknowledge this.

Money and power I think, Repeal

Whoah

What about the rights of little girls not to have to see a big pair of hairy bollocks up close while getting changed for swimming?

The argument is TWAW so 'sex based rights' go poof because TW rights are W rights.

If you agree that there is a separate thing called sex based rights, you would have to acknowledge that there is a group of biological women with one characteristic in common and biological men are separate from there. Therefore you would also have to acknowledge that the difference of those biological women is a just reason to consider separate rights that non biological women could not infringe on. And the whole house of cards falls down.

Lily Madigan said straight out, years ago, women having rights is transphobic. Because if you mean biological women and rights specific to them then you have said that TW are not women.

The answer to Ruth Hunt and Stonewall is you're welcome to your delusions, you can believe anything you want including fairies at the bottom of the garden. But TW are not women, biology exists and women are entitled to rights not being stripped away by men. No matter how those men feel about it.

FUCK OFF RUTH

Just that, really.

It doesn't make any sense. To say that you 'will not' acknowledge a conflict of rights because to do so would 'imply that transpeople don't deserve the same rights as everyone else' is pure ideology. There's no actual examination of unintended consequences, it's just a stubborn "We've already reached the conclusion, we don't care about anything you have to say".

I've said it before, and I will probably say it again, but this is religious fervour.

Hence also the argument of erasure. If you insist you are a biological woman with features that no one but another biological woman can share to be part of the group of biological women, then you are saying TW cannot be women. Which they feel 'erases' them.

The answer to that one is, this is something you are going to have to learn to deal with or seek support to overcome, because your feelings and sense of self is not more important than the rights of half the population.

Right to exist? Ffs why do they keep saying that? Nobody wants to eradicate them. This is so enraging. It’s blatantly misogynistic.

I've said it before, and I will probably say it again, but this is religious fervour.

It is. The whole area of human rights is based on proportionality and the balancing of competing needs.

But then: if Amnesty, the world's most prominent human rights org, has forgotten this, why should Stonewall bother to remember?

I feel sick reading that.
I think she is destroying Stonewall.

It is blatantly misogynistic. It's also blatantly hypocritical - they are perfectly happy to erase and eradicate women, their identity, their language, their right to be a recognised class. The entitlement, the massively different standards and the utter contempt for women is truly shocking.

And it's being openly expressed, pretty much unchallenged. The rage is that women dare to resist.

The whole thing is destructive of self and others, an evil religious belief.

It really annoys me.

Human Rights are not top trumps. Sometimes rights conflict and it's down to the courts.

The fact that sometimes rights conflict doesn't mean someone has no rights, it doesn't mean one side is a bigot and the other a vulnerable victim.

We all have rights and we all have the right to assert them.

I think Hunt is doing immense damage to Stonewall.

I really can’t take any more. I naively thought they would listen.

Stonewall are being logical (in their eyes). If you believe that TWAW (including Jacinta Brooks & Huntley & Karen White & all the flashers and fetishists who are currently parading under their umbrella), then they can't say any different.
Where that leaves the rest of society who see the conflicting rights and the risks to others (especially women and children) from this I really don't know. They are supported by some very powerful people and lots and lots of money - and money evidently matters to Stonewall.

It does demonstrate why they're called 'Stonewall' though doesn't it?

There are very few people involved in these debates who 'deny the existence of trans people'. Indeed, the entire arguments around sex-based rights depends on there being non-sex-based rights to also consider.

Well she would say that, wouldn't she?

We are in the middle of a consultation. Stonewall have everything to gain (and the backing of powerful, rich officials and politicians), but Stonewall has even more to lose if there is a backlash.

She may see think that Stonewall will be a key player in the next phases, and that the government will continue to value their expertise/standing.

Miranda Yardley article: 'Ma Vie En Rose: Ruth Hunt’s Rose-Tinted Trans*Goggles and the anti-Woman Politics of Stonewall'
(extract)
"I first spoke with Stonewall’s Ruth Hunt just over three years ago when the organisation announced it would be engaging with the transgender community. This resulted in the forming of the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group, you know that motley crew of transgender tyrants, including the self-styled (styled as if it were 1973) answer for any heterosexual woman who wishes to bring out her ‘inner lesbian’, Alex ‘Beardy’ Drummond. cheeky wink

Ruth, bless her fighting heart, has been defending transgender activists to an extraordinary degree, indeed there appears to be no transgression she cannot overlook with her inbuilt sense of forgiveness which seems divine in breadth and depth. She has embraced the very dogma that makes real life discussion, debate and compromise with transgenderists impossible, dogma which positions the interests of the T in ‘LGBT’ in opposition to anyone who considers biological sex to be important in any material way: trans women are women, no debate, end of.

Quite aside from it being cruel to humour delusional claims of one being something one is not, positioning one’s acceptance of an individual on a lie is outright dishonest. And anyway, what is a lesbian and gay group doing when it considers the thoughts and feelings of personal identity more important than the reality of our sexed bodies?" (continues)
mirandayardley.com/en/ma-vie-en-rose-ruth-hunts-rose-tinted-transgoggles-and-the-anti-woman-politics-of-stonewall/
picture from article

Answering has shot Stonewall in the foot.

As linked on some of the earlier Ruth Hunt threads on here it seems obvious that the majority of support for her tenure as CEO early on came from the T and trans lobby groups.

She was not popular with gay men when she took over (in part due to some early decisions and rhetoric and also possibly due to good old sexism on their part). As time has gone on she has now also alienated a growing number of lesbians.

Seems like the trans part of the LGBT is her most vocal and supportive base and is probably what is keeping her in post.

current thread.
OP TurfClub wrote:
"Jacinta Brooks is a serial paedophile

metro.co.uk/2018/10/01/trans-woman-pretended-to-be-a-boy-to-groom-a-girl-7994533/

"Prosecutor Berenice Mulvanny said that police found screenshots of the conversation with the girl along with hundreds of child abuse pictures. Brooks gave no comment during a police interview but admitted she ‘couldn’t argue’ about being attracted to children. Miss Mulvanny said: ‘Brooks knew the girl was underage but sent her sexual messages. The defendant originally pretended to be a 14-year-old boy but soon admitted her real age.’

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3381513-Woman-41-pretended-to-be-a-boy-to-groom-a-girl?

I find 'Acceptance without Exception' really inappropriate.

Without exception? Really? So a trans person who is unfortunately also a paedophile or a rapist or predatory is welcomed into their gang with open arms right alongside the vulnerable teenage girl who desperately wants her breasts removed?

No one on the board sees any issue at all with that slogan?