Guardian article: "The cynical attack on Stonewall ..." by Freddy McConnell

[yetanotherusernameAgain]

Article in The Guardian by Freddy McConnell - "The cynical attack on Stonewall is a reminder of the need to stand up for trans rights"

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/17/stonewall-trans-rights-britain

[Diaryofamadwoman]

At least its acknowledged we come from the left now, I see that as an improvement.

[Whatwouldscullydo]

Someone needs to direct the anger towards towards right people. It was SW who put everyone from post operative transsexuals to part time cross dressers under the umbrella. Of course women we going to say no. How about berating Stone wall for getting greedy and ruining it for everyone as opposed to women who dare have boundaries

[OhHolyJesus]

Has Freddy ever written something in the guardian that wasn't about 'trans rights'?

I get it's a specialist subject for Freddy but I thought journalists were diverse in their writing and were able to write about all a number of topics.

TBF Freddy has written about being a parent whilst trans so that's...sort of still about trans.

[DadDadDad]

Still waiting for Stonewall to publish their accounts for the year ending September 2020. They've got until the end of July to submit them to the Charity Commission, but it will interesting to see if their expenditure continues to exceed their income.

[StillWeRise]

I don't recall ANYONE talking about 'reasonable concerns' about gay men and lesbians in changing rooms...trust me I was there, section 28 was about schools and reasonable people thought it was madness. Whereas now, the very same reasonable people see a genuine threat to women's safety, privacy dignity and an assault on the health and bodily integrity of children. Does Freddy think our memories are so poor.

[TedImgoingmad]

Mendacious twaddle. Conveniently omits that the EHRC backed Maya. Lecturing people who fought section 28, when Freddie wasn't even born then. In the absence of facts, just throw in a bit of emotional blackmail. And as for the complaining about trans lives not getting media attention? Hello? Weren't you the person who had a TV programme made about them?

[GirlsInGreen]

Guess that #NoDebate shtick didn't work out

[PurgatoryOfPotholes]

I'd left school before section 28 was repealed. I don't remember anyone having "reasonable concerns" about lesbians either.

The first time I'd ever heard such a thing, was actually on mumsnet many years later from a poster telling a woman to get over herself and accept having a male midwife in labour. To this day, the only time I ever hear men and women raising "concerns" about lesbians, is when they're telling other women not to be mean by denying access to their bodies to some subset of biological male.

I think people need to stop using lesbians like this.

[Soontobe60]

@StillWeRise

I don't recall ANYONE talking about 'reasonable concerns' about gay men and lesbians in changing rooms...trust me I was there, section 28 was about schools and reasonable people thought it was madness. Whereas now, the very same reasonable people see a genuine threat to women's safety, privacy dignity and an assault on the health and bodily integrity of children. Does Freddy think our memories are so poor.

As a teacher, I fought Section 28 and could see just how dangerous it could easily become. Stonewall made a huge difference then. Shame it’s turned it’s back on those it first fought for.

[PurpleHoodie]

What Ted said.

[YellowFish12]

Oh bore off Freddy. Highly disingenuous article. Those pesky wimin trying to stick to the meaning of words and the law.

I’d like to know, is it possible to write a pro-trans article without working in a suicide?

[PurpleHoodie]

GirlsInGreen

Guess that #NoDebate shtick didn't work out

Yes

[stumbledin]

Although the Guardian web site doesn't allow comments, you can comment on their facebook opinion page if you want.

Not many have, but most are saying this article is just ridiculous.

www.facebook.com/GuardianOpinion/posts/4351061321593030

[BraveBananaBadge]

Don't know if I understood a word of that. There were so many points to legitimately contest I lost count. I suppose that is to be expected from McConnell in the circs. But then facts and reality aren't really his forte.

[OnWednesdaysWeWearMink]

I don’t understand why people like to suggest that as trans people were at the Stonewall riots, gay people somehow have to support them?

It’s not about supporting your mates. It’s about serious political and societal questions that need to be assessed on their own merit.

I hate this use of intersectionality as a way to stop people advocating for their own specific class.

[stumbledin]

Stonewall are obviously lobbying like made to get positive (for them) articles published. There is one in the Standard claiming to be looking at why there is a backlash against Stonewall, but then doesn't list any of the criticisms made about Stonewall!
www.standard.co.uk/insider/stonewall-row-trans-people-trans-rights-gender-identity-b941160.html

[ClafoutisSurprise]

I found the way the article contrasted the tolerant views of the general public with what was presented as the fringe bigoted views of the GC camp to be dishonest.

I clicked on the link to that survey, and - surprise, surprise - found myself to be in agreement with the public at large (I personally don’t have an issue with toilets, although I appreciate others do - this was the only question I thought might see a GC feminist diverge).

Funny how I happen to fall into these two supposedly different groups.

Almost as though the general public is a) largely unaware of the nuances of this issue and b) being asked different questions to the ones at the heart of this. The public’s support for values of tolerance and open mindedness is being misrepresented as acceptance of arguments that are far from straightforward and indeed until relatively recently confined to gender studies specialists and the like.

[Datun]

@BraveBananaBadge

Don't know if I understood a word of that. There were so many points to legitimately contest I lost count. I suppose that is to be expected from McConnell in the circs. But then facts and reality aren't really his forte.

Yep.

And most people know it. It's been splashed across the media for weeks.

[Quaggars]

But one line of attack in the Tories’ culture war not only gets a free pass, it is actively aided and abetted by a vocal minority on the left.

I agree with this

[NiceGerbil]

I noticed that near the beginning transwomen were mentioned and I thought, that's odd given that FC is transman. I'd have thought they would focus on transmen or all trans people.

Then later on stand up for trans sisters.

If the issue is with trans people full stop then why the focus on transwomen? That doesn't make sense does it.

[NiceGerbil]

The Tories have been pro trans, for ages. Then neutral and now they seem to be backing off.

The Tories don't give a shit about women or trans people.

This idea that women have been bamboozled into supporting the evil right is sexist and patronising.

'But one line of attack in the Tories’ culture war not only gets a free pass, it is actively aided and abetted by a vocal minority on the left. I refer to the government’s assault on the freedoms'

The cost of a GRC has just been reduced to a fiver.

And they've said they aren't going to change anything else at the mo.

Giving something asked for and then saying we'll stay where we are is an attack on existing freedoms how, exactly.

[merrymouse]

This idea that women have been bamboozled into supporting the evil right is sexist and patronising.

Yes, and deliberately promoted by Stonewall. Acknowledging the issues raised by left wing women would mean addressing the innate sexism and homophobia of gender ideology.

[somethinginoffensive]

As you say virtually every sentence of that is factually inaccurate, not merely opinion that I disagree with.

The main “charge” against Stonewall is conveniently vague,

Opinion, but people are definitely writing about specific things stonewall have done.

but can be traced to a report commissioned by the University of Essex that looked at the cancellation of a seminarr* at which an academic who is seen as “gender critical” was due to speak, as well as another cancelled event.

Lying by omission, two female professors has their events cancelled because of their views.
The way it's written gives the impression that it could have been a coincidence. And not mentioning who was cancelled hides the fact that women were targeted.

Although not directly related to the event in question, the report touched on Stonewall’s Diversity Champions programme, which exists to advise employers on how to operate inclusive of LGBTQ+ people. It claimed that Stonewall Diversity Champions policies do not “accurately state the law”.

It "claimed" stonewall policies don't accurately state the law because stonewall policies don't accurately state the law! It gave evidence of this the fact that women had been denied their freedom of speech because of the inaccurate representation of the law from stonewall and the culture created by this.

The Guardian obviously don't have any fact-checkers because this piece is a disgrace.

[NecessaryScene]

Surely the "evil right" has been "bamboozled" into supporting women's rights?

That was the point of all the campaigning and lobbying starting with the GRA, as I recall.

Now, if we could just persuade the left as well...

[TabbyStar]

There was always concern that gay men were sexual predators, but this applied to lesbians too, and lesbians routinely lost custody of their children in the 80s and early 90s. It may have been the sort of thing you didn't notice much if you were heterosexual, but as a young lesbian at the time tbh it's difficult to get away from that conditioning that many heterosexual women feel that way about you (and clearly some still do from the posts you see on here about lesbians in changing rooms). I don't think it's the same thing obvs wrt trans people, but let's not minimise what lesbians who were out in earlier decades had to go through.

I refuse to give The Guardian any clicks though so I didn't read the article!