The women promoting transition.(57 Posts)
@MNHQ I'm notifying you of this thread before even starting it...
I think a lot about women involved with promoting transition. Dr Olsen-Kennedy, Dr Webberley, Susie Green. The mothers who appear on forums discussing their small child's social transition in terms of clothing recommendations.
To me they seem like anti-feminists who locate the solution to women's oppression in changes to individuals' presentation in the world, and who will medicalise personal distress by removing distressed women from the community of women, while internalizing the distress of men at toxic masculinity by insisting that any man who feels that distress must be female.
But I'd feel pretty sure that every one of those women would say they are feminists. And many opponents of their approach would use their actions to discredit feminism and say that it's literally about castration... or that 'feminists asked for this' by analysing society in terms of sexual oppression.
I guess I am struggling with the fact that so many women disagree with me in this! I feel like a sex traitor. These, after all,are the women Dworkin meant when she talked about women you don't like.
For many people perceptions of Stonewall have changed radically. If asked five years ago I would have probably said I considered Stonewall to be an important voice representing same-sex attracted people, who had achieved some impressive and important societal changes.
A few weeks back I had lunch with my 50 something, immersed in London's gay scene for 30 years, neighbour and we discussed Stonewall. He had felt that Stonewall was his organisation. Life for gay men was very different 30 years ago. He had had lots of friends who worked there, pride was his event and so on.
I explained that I was concerned about:
1. the restrictions of free speech, the #nodebate which effectively prevented women from talking about the impact on their rights and needs.
2. the transing of children, especially girls with ROGD, using an affirmation only approach, rather than watchful waiting.
3. the corporatisation of Stonewall and the massive conflict of interest of having a lobby group provide policy advice and training to senior people across the public, financial, commercial and third sectors.
My neighbours concerns were that:
1. Pride no longer felt like his place. It was too commercial and too corporate, and he was not certain that Stonewall really represented people like him any more.
2. He was worried about three vulnerable friends (the erosion of boundaries and the proliferation of drugs amongst the gay scene in London was creating vulnerable people) who had decided they were "trans". He struggled to understand what was going on, and worried that "dysphoria" was being seen as a quick fix to other problems.
Jan Gooding is clearly hugely influential, yet her role is rarely discussed. Others mentioned on this thread seem to fall under the heading "useful fools", not fully aware of how they are being used. Ruth Hunt gets to run a major charity, and then is whisked off to a seat in the House of Lords, Sally Hines gets lots of research money and a Professorship, but I don't think either are heavyweight.
Jan Gooding in contrast is clearly heavyweight. She is bringing corporate and marketing nous to the table, and is almost certainly behind the embracing of the "T".
I would love to know more about her. Who is supporting her? What are her influences? What is her motivation?
Somehow Stonewall have managed to cow the British establishment. Until recently only one MP out of 650, David TC Davies, was willing to stand up to contest the dogma that TWAW even though we knew (from James Kirkup) that many, including members of the Cabinet, agreed with him. Great British firms like M&S and John Lewis, who would rarely make business decisions without market research, allow men into women's changing rooms without any customer consultation, whilst firms in every sector rush to promote their wokeness and to cover themselves with Rainbow glitter. Whilst crucial safeguarding institutions like the police and NSPCC seem to have abandoned their principles without thought or research.
Who managed that, and how did they do it. Jan Gooding is one of them. There are some very serious questions to be asked of her.
Interesting post Needmoresleep.
I have not heard of this person before.
There are lots of intriguing people and groups behind the trans lobby.
I came out during Section 28, Needmoresleep.. I volunteered for Stonewall, had a standing order for them & matched at Pride. I still remember the rush of joy I felt when a SOME PEOPLE ARE LESBIANS: GET OVER IT billboard appeared down the road from my flat.
Now I demonstrate outside Stonewall conferences in defence of same-sex attraction, against young potential LGBs being drugged, sterilised & mutilated, & Stonewall call the police on me. Pride is something to stay well away from & the rainbow has become a symbol of homophobia.
I’m really, really hoping the LGB Alliance will fix things.
I just googled Jan Gooding and found this interview that she did earlier this year. It offers a clue about her lack of support for lesbians:
You prefer to identify with the label of Gay rather than Lesbian. Why is that?
That’s right – I identify as gay as for me it means I am more overtly aligned with gay men. We are working towards many of the same goals and law reforms, so it makes sense to me.
So Stonewall is headed by a woman who is male-identified and has deeply internalised homophobia. No wonder lesbians have been sold down the rover. The Chair of the Stonewall board doesn't want to be known as a lesbian!
ok, so everyone is probably going to be up in arms about this but...looking at her and reading the article she comes accross as a woman who has never had a disenting thought (or any thought?) in her life.
I would put good money on her not being the brains behind anything. She is a front (you'll love this Jan) man.
My one piece of advice, given to me when founding a lobby group aimed at saving a local park, and then passed on usefully to people trying to save a Lido, is to take a step back and do some market research amongst the potential catchment/community.
The priorities of those energised to start their own group will be specific. Something you care strongly about. However if you are to speak for the gay community as a whole and have their support and approval you need to know more about what issues other's care about. My neighbour probably cares little about single sex spaces. He has never had any interest in entering them. He has female friends, who may be straight or lesbian, but will little interest in their sexuality, nor feel any particular solidarity with girls experiencing ROGD. He is however worried about how unsafe the London gay scene is now, "wanting to understand" transgenderism as he is concerned about men with other problems who believe transition will be the answer to their problems, and might well worry about feminine boys being encouraged to believe they are really girls. I suspect he would support and organisation which lobbied for the support needed for older gay men, perhaps those who find themselves socially isolated, or those who are facing specific problems resulting from the long term use of retrovirals. He would like something less corporate which is representing him, not simply selling rainbows.
The important thing is for LGBA to define itself as a voice for LGB people, not just in relation to Stonewall or in opposition to the TRA agenda.
The research might show some areas of conflict where a new organisation might decide to tread carefully or with nuance. The Save the Lido group was initiated by triathlon and distance swimmers, but soon discovered their presence was putting other users off. Talking to other groups and buying some lane ropes, led to a much wider community engagement, better usage, and eventually, the local authority treating them as a community partner. The park research showed up that kids want water fountains, as do dog walkers. Who knew.
Some good research, some good press releases to advertise the research, a proper governance structure and engagement policy.
And @chiochan I don't disagree. It would be interesting to know who is pulling the levers. She seems rather conflicted about her sexuality, and possibly won't have the same emotional concerns as someone who came out as a teenager and worries that young girls today are being encouraged down a route that says their bodies are not acceptable and that being same lesbian is not acceptable.
Sorry about the @s. Its a while since anyone posted, so I am slightly rudely grabbing your attention. Understanding who is behind the Stonewall capitulation is really important.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.